The Washington Post ran a nice piece on how SoulForce is taking its message-that there's nothing contradictory about being gay and Christian-to anti-gay fundamentalist colleges: An excerpt:
The riders filed out of the bus and stood in a line. Some held signs: "Open Dialogue" and "All at God's Table." They had all taken care to dress professionally, but "professional" is a relative term.... [Robin] Reynolds looked neat, but by Patrick Henry standards boy neat, in a pinstriped button-down shirt and slacks.
Reynolds made a brief statement calling herself a "child of God, a follower of Christ and a lesbian." Jarrett Lucas and Josh Polycarpe, both 21-year-old African American activists, walked past a "Private Property, No Trespassing" sign. They were politely arrested and driven away.
I've long felt that witnessing (and, when necessary, getting arrested for doing so) is far more effective than shouting (or, worse, shouting obscenities, or throwing communion wafers on the ground, or other not exactly useful tactics deployed by some gay activists in the past as they acted up against the spiritually benighted).
Another excerpt:
Soulforce visits often bring gay students and alumni out of hiding, and this was no exception. Three alumni contacted Reynolds during the visit; she said one told her he was gay and that his time at Patrick Henry had been the "hardest four years of his life."
David Hazard, a friend of [Patrick Henry College founder Michael] Farris who had edited one of his books, also told Reynolds he was gay. When Farris heard that during an interview in his office, his jaw fell open, and he stared for a long time. "Oh. I'm so sorry for David," he said. "I think he's deluded." The place for someone like that, he added, "is on their knees repenting of their sin.
"But here's a good reaction for you: I still like him."
Make of that what you will.
144 Comments for “Making an Impression”
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, the Religious Wrong keeps getting brushed back. We’re forcing them to back away from one lie after another. We can only take on their misinformation campaign one lie at a time.
First they said we “chose” to be gay. Some still trot that tired old lie out, but by and large they’ve had to back away from it. Then they said we “couldn’t” be Christians. Well, enough of us went ahead and were Christians anyway that that lie doesn’t work very well anymore, either.
Now they still see us as “sinful.” Well, we see them as sinful. They need to spend at least as much time repenting for their sin (or at least explaining why, supposedly, it isn’t a sin) as they do attacking us.
Hooray for SoulForce. They’ve taken on a tough job, and they’re doing it admirably.
posted by howller on
According to first-hand reports, the recent SoulForce visit to Brigham Young University contributed to a recent change in the verbage of the BYU student Honor Code’s homosexuality section. The new text clarifies ambiguities, drops the term “lifestyle” and actually recognizes the concept of sexual “orientation.” These may be baby steps, but overall, the message to gay students is considerably more accepting than previously.
posted by Brian Miller on
I have great respect for the men and women who are taking the risks required to do what they’re doing. Even though I am not a religious person, I understand the importance it has in the lives of others and applaud these gay folks for asserting themselves within their religious communities!
posted by Tsc, tsc. on
Next step: make blacks be accepted into white supremacist institutions.
posted by Lori Heine on
Comparing the inclusion of gays in the Church with that of blacks into white-supremacist institutions – well, tee, hee! How cutesy-pie. How vapid.
The Christian faith did not endure for two thousand years because of hate. Some folks insist upon believing that it did, but that’s their problem. Every atheist who puts forth such a charge ought to be made to answer for the warm and cuddly history of the Soviet Union.
There’s a lot of stupid, bumper-sticker thinking out there about Christians and Christianity. People who wish to lump all Christians together with white supremacists, or Nazis, or whatever stupidly refuse to acknowledge the many Christians (a lot of whom are straight) who are out there standing up for us — often at great risk to themselves, and with little but ridicult to show for it, even from those who ought to have enough sense to thank them.
Most incredibly, people like Tsc, tsc will then bitch and cry about the fact that there aren’t more of them. Small wonder — thanks to the bitchers and cryers — that there aren’t.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And there’s the problem, Lori; Soulforce’s message does no good when the overwhelming voice coming out of the gay community is that of Tsc, tsc. and his/her ilk.
Perhaps when “Bishop” Gene Robinson and “Reverend” Mel White demonstrate that being Christian and gay are not incompatible by dealing directly with those on BOTH sides who say they aren’t, then we’ll have progress.
posted by Casey on
NDT – hasn’t it occurred to you that what SoulForce is doing, by taking part in a form of activism which requires courage and some measure of sacrifice (think of the opportunity costs, if nothing else), is a form of witnessing to their faith? The message this sends to the gay community is explicitly that religious faith is a) open to them, and b) a great motivator for those who would see justice done – it encourages them to do things which, apparently, non-spiritual people just won’t do. Just as Christians read the Gospels and see that Jesus and his disciples traveled far and wide to spread his message of redemption and reconciliation, and are thus strengthened in their faith, gays and lesbians who see the SoulForce riders on their journey may see echoes of that message… and from there wonder if there might be more to this God than they knew before. Call it Evangelism 101.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just as Christians read the Gospels and see that Jesus and his disciples traveled far and wide to spread his message of redemption and reconciliation, and are thus strengthened in their faith, gays and lesbians who see the SoulForce riders on their journey may see echoes of that message
Call me crazy, but I don’t recall the Gospels and the Epistles talking about Jesus and his disciples trying to force their way in front of the Jewish leaders and the Romans, TV cameras in tow, deliberately breaking the laws and doing their best to get arrested.
What I do remember them doing was talking directly to the people they were trying to evangelize and even in several instances, avoiding martyrdom (John 8:58 – 59, 10: 31 – 39; Acts 17, Acts 23:23, and several others) or creating inflammatory situations.
If Soulforce wants to witness to their faith to gays, doesn’t it make more sense to be talking to gays, rather than other people?
When you look at Soulforce’s website, though, you can see why they don’t bother.
The purpose of Soulforce is freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.
In other words, Soulforce has nothing to do with religion for or evangelizing to gays. It has everything to do with exploiting “religion” as an excuse for publicity-hunting and political protests.
posted by Lori Heine on
Frankly, I have mixed feelings about SoulForce as an organization. I agree that it’s important to keep a dialogue going with potentially-homophobic hetero Christians. But I think what the SoulForce people do requires a special gift — one I just don’t think I have.
I’ve considered joining the local chapter, but it seems to me that all they do is hold marches and candlelight vigils in front of the most hostile churches and colleges they might possibly choose. It almost seems as if they enjoy being snarled at by bigots, clubbed over the head by cops and hauled off to jail.
It all seems a bit creepy to me…almost as if they’re doing these heroic, martyr-type things for the sake of getting the crap beaten out of them. I’m not that fond of pain.
I believe in choosing my battles. I speak with people who show some willingness to keep open minds and really listen to what I’m saying. More and more straight Christians are becoming receptive to the inclusion of gays. Why waste all the time that SoulForce does on the hardest cases and on those least likely to be converted?
posted by Lori Heine on
It occurs to me that maybe this is why many gays who are hostile to Christianity get their impression that “all” Christians are against us. If all they see on the TV news, with regard to the issue, are cops arresting demonstrators, it is perhaps no wonder they think any gay or lesbian person who holds out hope of acceptance in the churches must be a fool.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why waste all the time that SoulForce does on the hardest cases and on those least likely to be converted?
Because, Lori, when your whole point is to show how the world demonizes you and to publicize how brave you are to resist them, you need someone who will actually do it.
Most useful activism is overwhelmingly boring and unglamorous. Serving free meals to AIDS victims means (literally) slaving over a hot stove, dishwater hands, glop on your clothes, a sore back from taking massive bags to the Dumpster, and occasionally having to mop up the end or front) results of someone whose stomach hasn’t had a real meal in days reacting to nourishing food. It doesn’t have nearly the panache or publicity of mincing onto a lawn under the camera and lights, being arrested, then getting back on a comfortable bus.
But it helps people who need it.
Like I pointed out above, our Lord didn’t seem to be much for rabble-rousing, getting arrested, and making weepy cries about how “repressed” He was by religious and political figures. He seemed to be all about unglamorous behind-the-scenes things, like working, helping the sick and downtrodden, preaching to those who would listen, and washing other peoples’ stinky feet.
Jesus put practicality above publicity. Mel White and “Bishop” Gene Robinson do the opposite.
posted by Casey on
As somebody who has done some work with the folks at SoulForce, I’ve got to disagree somewhat with any characterization of them as martyr-wannabees or publicity hounds. I do so on two grounds. First, though it doesn’t receive as much coverage in the media, much of what they do at these campuses really is just simple dialogue – presentations, Q&A’s, conversations over coffee. Many of the destinations of the equality rides have welcomed the riders (to one extent or another) with no police presence at all. These are institutions of education, not private homes, and some schools allow for the disagreement of ideas… and as noted above, some progress is made. Even where policies don’t change, by simply visiting, SoulForce offers support and strength to gay students at these institutions, offering the courage to come out, or just to survive another day in extreme cases. It sends the message that these kids are not forgotten and that somebody cares and understands – this isn’t trivial.
Secondly, sometimes publicity has its uses – why do you think the miracles were performed and then written down? It wasn’t just to relieve suffering – those miracles sent messages – but that’s a theological debate that we need not get into here. SoulForce takes its inspiration directly from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his civil rights movement. NDT, would you have condemned those students for sitting at white-only lunch counters? For sitting in the front of the bus? For marching to vote, even in the face of police dogs and firehoses? MLK knew that nonviolent confrontation, and the rejection and inhospitality of the opposition, is an effective way to rouse the consciences of the American people. This is not a license for never-ending, useless protesting with no clear objective – but I’ve never known the equality riders to indulge in that. They go, send their message, and move on, letting the school’s response speak volumes… and it is having an impact. Even among my more conservative friends, the fearful inhospitality of these schools is starting to make them wonder what the school is so afraid of, if they are so certain that homosexuality is clearly sinful… and it encourages people of good faith to look again. Seems a worthwhile endeavor to me, and not something that could be accomplished without some judicious use of media attention.
posted by Casey on
Oh, and as to the effort expended on the toughest cases when it might be more efficient to go after the movable middle – I think we underestimate the extent to which the students at these institutions are within reach of a reasonable, civil discussion. Sure, we’ll probably never get the administration, but at every campus there are students who want to talk to the Riders, and in every room where a presentation is given, there are a few quiet kids who go away thinking that maybe we have a point. It’s like when Dale Carpenter or Corvino debates somebody like Maggie Gallagher – the objective isn’t to change Gallagher’s mind (cool as that would be), it’s to get the audience. I admire and appreciate the work that goes on by many activists talking to the undecideds – I just also think that there’s something to be said for at least talking to those who really disagree with you. Every time we win one of those – and we sometimes do – it’s one heck of a coup, like pulling out a keystone holding up a wall – get enough of those, and the wall comes a’tumbling down.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, as I said before, it does require a special gift to do what the folks in SoulForce do. I can’t claim I have refrained from joining SoulForce for purely ideological reasons. I don’t have the temperament for it.
I’m too feisty, too confrontational. Sometimes that can be a good thing, but to engage in the work that SoulForce does, it would be a terrible liability.
NDT does bring up a good point, though. There is a certain high that comes from feeling virtuous and heroic and standing up to the evil bigots who hate gays. It plays well in the media (which, let’s face it, is only interested in stories about us when they have entertainment value), and it makes our foes look mean and petty.
SoulForce does do a lot of quiet, behind-the-scenes work, and it does provide valuable support to people on campuses and in denominations where they feel isolated and alone. If that was ALL they did, I would be more than willing to join them.
posted by Timothy on
Lori,
“There is a certain high that comes from feeling virtuous and heroic and standing up to the evil bigots who hate gays.”
May I suggest that it is because standing up to evil bigots IS virtuous and heroic? Sometimes doing good is its own reward.
As for NDT, I think everything that one needs to know about his belief system or logic process can be found in the following sentence:
“Mel White and “Bishop” Gene Robinson do the opposite.”
Although Robinson was elected, confirmed, and ordained by the legal process established by the Episcopal Church, and though the Episcopal Church is the sole authority over who is to be called Bishop within that institution, and though one recognizes titles confirmed by churches regardless of whether one agrees with the individual’s theology, NDT will not acknowledge Robinson’s title as being legitimate. Robinson is gay, you see.
posted by Timothy on
I do not fault SoulForce for not preparing food for AIDS suffers. I can simply help Project Angel Food instead.
I do not fault SoulForce for not focusing on gay evangelism. I can simply help MCC (or any of a great many other churches) instead.
I do not fault SoulForce because of the things that they do not do. If that is the measure by which we are judged, none of us would ever measure up. And of course, those who would criticize us for not doing these things are not doing them either. You will notice that SoulForce is not being attacked by AIDS providers or gay evangelizers. No, SoulForce is being condemned by those who seem never to find a single gay organization or individual of whom they approve.
Though I do not share much of SoulForce’s theology, I say “Bravo, SoulForce. Those to whom you are speaking too often have no others from whom they can hear what you are saying.”
posted by Lori Heine on
“May I suggest that it is because standing up to evil bigots IS virtuous and heroic? Sometimes doing good is its own reward.”
Timothy, I don’t think anyone doubts this. As someone who’s been a writer primarily for the GLBT Christian community for years, now, and has received plenty of hate mail and death threats for the stands I take, I hardly need you to lecture me about it.
Presumably you know so much about the rewards of doing good because you’ve done so much of it yourself. And if so, then good for you.
The subject that seems to be emerging, in this commentary thread, is that quiet acts of the sort that do not attract media attention can be more effective, in the long run, than the loud and splashy ones involving fire and drama. SoulForce, as I believe we have established here, has had a lot of experience doing both.
The point I do want to reiterate is that people who liken all gay Chrisians to “Jewish Nazis,” “Black Klansmen” and such seem to have gotten their ideas about what Christians are like from the fire and drama highlighted by the media. That does not take away from good efforts done by groups like SoulForce behind the scenes. It merely implies that they might want to concentrate more on them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, would you have condemned those students for sitting at white-only lunch counters? For sitting in the front of the bus? For marching to vote, even in the face of police dogs and firehoses?
And just how, exactly, does any of those in any way compare to people who go around trying to provoke a fight and media coverage by trespassing and deliberately breaking the law?
The fact that gays have the gall to compare our situation to that of black Americans under segregation frankly annoys the bejesus out of me. And frankly, Mel White’s invoking of MLK reminds me a heck of a lot of Jesse Jackson’s — more out of co-opting a good name for bad behavior than out of any respect for what MLK actually did.
Secondly, sometimes publicity has its uses – why do you think the miracles were performed and then written down?
Jesus was quite publicity-averse, if you read the accounts.
Probably because he realized a truism that many could remember today; when one focuses on the man or woman doing it, the ministry often suffers.
Although Robinson was elected, confirmed, and ordained by the legal process established by the Episcopal Church, and though the Episcopal Church is the sole authority over who is to be called Bishop within that institution, and though one recognizes titles confirmed by churches regardless of whether one agrees with the individual’s theology, NDT will not acknowledge Robinson’s title as being legitimate. Robinson is gay, you see.
Actually, my objection to Robinson has less to do with the fact that he’s gay than with the fact that he openly blasphemes and supports antireligious bigotry BECAUSE he’s gay. The fact that Robinson is a bishop is an excellent demonstration of the fact that the qualifications for an Episcopal bishop do not require actually believing a word of Scripture; you can quite openly state that Jesus and the apostles were all gay and had gay sex with each other and still qualify, for instance.
And finally, Timothy, I will take lectures from you on showing the proper respect for duly-elected church figures when you confront the antireligious hate and bigotry thrown at the Pope in the name of the gay community by people like Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis.
No, SoulForce is being condemned by those who seem never to find a single gay organization or individual of whom they approve.
There are plenty of people out there — Lori, for one, and it seems Casey, as well — who exemplify that one can be Christian and gay without one being required to subordinate the other.
And, not only have I approved of various gay organizations, I’ve seen fit to donate a sizeable chunk of my time to raise money and to volunteer for several, not to mention sharing my expertise on the topics of glbts in the workplace with my professional association and colleagues.
What it seems we have here is a narrowminded gay person who equates criticism of any gay group with being homophobic and anti-gay. Rest assured that I am not; I simply am tired of seeing self-aggrandizement, victimization-pushing, and antireligious hate speech and activities being passed off in the name of being gay, especially when the money and time wasted on all three would be far better spent in taking care of those in our community who need it.
posted by Brian Miller on
he openly blasphemes
And we all know what the punishment the Bible demands for blasphemy is!
(Religious debate — wonderful. Religious fanaticism? Not so great.)
posted by Bobby on
I don’t know why, but I cringe when I hear about gay groups trying to be accepted.
Blacks where trying to have equal rights, not join churches that don’t want them.
Why can’t gays just stick to gay churches and gay supporting churches?
posted by Lori Heine on
Bobby, for some of us gay churches like the local MCC, or gay-supporting churches, are a good idea.
My theology happens to be too traditional and orthodox for churches like these. I’m not going to stay in a congregation whose pastor gets up in the pulpit and denies the divinity of Christ, or the Resurrection, or the necessity of repentance from sin.
Some of the more liberal congregations seem, to me, to be a waste of time. They’re nothing but Sesame Street sing-along, PC crapola from beginning to end.
GLBT Christians, I believe, have the same right to freedom of religion that everyone else does. That means that we need to be in a church that teaches what we believe to be the truth.
I now go to a Lutheran church that welcomes gays. My fellow church members are an inspiration to me. This past weekend, many of them (including quite a number who are straight) marched in Phoenix’s Pride parade. It has been getting out more, and going to a so-called “straight” church, that has given me a new sense of trust in the potential for goodness and positive change in our society.
If I were still hunkering down in some “gay” church, I might still be convinced — as so many are — that “everybody” hates us.
posted by Timothy on
“Why can’t gays just stick to gay churches and gay supporting churches?”
Bobby,
I think you may be presuming that these gay people are trying to join some church that doesn’t want them. From what I’ve seen this is not the case.
Generally, these are situations where the person was raised in a particular denomination – often having family going back generations – and who feels a close afinity to and love for his faith. And because being gay does not define one’s faith, they find a conflict between who they are (ie a gay person with a strong faith) and who they are expected to be. Often too they find that others around them love and support them but that some hierarchal structure demands that the be banished.
They are not fighting against the church, they are fighting for the church and for what they believe will bring the church closer to the heart of God.
These “battles” with anti-gays in various denominations are not waged from without but from within. It is not a matter of gay v. Lutheran but rather a matter of gay Lutheran v. anti-gay Lutheran.
Even with SoulForce, if you read the articles carefully you’ll see that often the individual participants at any college are either previous students or kids who were raised in the affiliated denomination. They are not outsiders demanding change, they are insiders saying “you have hurt me – one of your own – and this is how”.
I don’t think it is either right or fair to say that these people should give up their faith without a fight and just wander away to somewhere else. Just as I believe that it is important that gay people who are fiscally conservative to stay and fight for the Republican Party, or for gay people in small towns or the South to stay and fight for their culture and way of life, I also think it is important for gay people of faith to stay and fight for their God and their denomination.
posted by Lori Heine on
Timothy is exactly right. It is those of us who stay and work for full inclusion — not those who leave simply because they are asked to go — who are the true GLBT heroes today.
posted by Bobby on
In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock says that while we trade and socialize with gentiles, we don’t eat or go to church with them.
What Shylock meant was that he knew he was unwanted, and he had his own places where he was wanted and respected.
While I debate people who are hard right on tonguetied3.com I have no desire to meet them in real life, lest visit their churches.
I don’t want to be around people who think homosexuality is sinful, no matter how nice they are or aren’t.
The same goes with the synagogue of my youth. I hate that place, hate that stupid rabbi who never said anything good or bad about gays, hate my private school where the only time the subject was raised was in a negative, hate the people I went to school with and I want nothing to do with them.
I guess I can respect the work of Soulforce, but I’m more interested in peaceful coexistence with the homophobes than to actually join their clubs.
Think about this, why do straight cruises like Carnival and Norwegian have Friends of Dorothy meetings scheduled? Because for the most part, people are more comfortable with their own kind.
posted by Lori Heine on
Bobby, it must be sad to go through each day believing that EVERYBODY in the mostly-straight church hates gays. I’m here to tell you that it simply is not true.
Many do hate us, and far more simply misunderstand biblical teaching and think that we are sinners. But a growing number do accept us as equals.
I think Timothy put it very well. The Church belongs to us, just as much as it does to them. We are fighting and working for full inclusion in a place we have every right to be.
Many straight Christians, once they have come to see that we are simply people just like them, feel a deep remorse for the way they have treated us. They are thankful someone made the effort to show them they were wrong about us. Sincere Christians don’t want to remain in error when the error can be remedied.
A lot of those who preach to us about our “sinfulness” do so, however misguidedly, because they believe that if they do not show us the errors of our ways, we will go to Hell. Although I think they’re wrong, I can’t find it in me to be angry at them for trying to save me from Hell.
Coming to church with them is, actually, an act of evangelism. We are helping them to become more complete as Christians. That’s all many of them are trying to do for us. The least we can do is return the favor.
posted by dalea on
Lori says: “The point I do want to reiterate is that people who liken all gay Chrisians to “Jewish Nazis,” “Black Klansmen” and such seem to have gotten their ideas about what Christians are like from the fire and drama highlighted by the media.”
Actually, my understanding is that we have gotten our understanding from just living in the US and being around church people. This is not something we make up or imagine. It is our actual lived life that teaches us this. The media rarely covers even part of the tip of the iceberg.
In a bereavement group, that was a wonderful supporting environment, we went around the room sharing our experiences with Christians. It seemed each person had a minimum of 4 dreadful encounters with believers. Most had dozens. And many of the bereaved were straight people.
So, please quit putting us down and dismissing our experiences. Our lives are real, and so are our histories. You may not like the conclusions we reach, but they come from a long train of actual encounters with real live believers.
posted by Brian Miller on
The bizarre thing that perplexes me about religious believers (and I must confess, it does influence my perception of many of them) is the inherent contradictions in their rhetoric.
For instance, I was brought up Catholic, and left that institution at age 18. I’ll often challenge “orthodox” Catholics to ask why they insist that homosexuality is a “choice” (when it isn’t) but Catholicism is a “heritage that will always be a deep part of me.”
To be religious or not religious *is* a choice — it’s not an impulse or an inclination. However, let’s accept the argument that those who are raised in a religious tradition are really part of a community of people who have an inherent orientation towards unquestioning religiousity.
If such an inclination means that they cannot change — in the slightest — to accommodate other members of their own religious community, isn’t it a bit rich to demand that folks in other religious communities change to accept them?
And isn’t it *doubly* contradictory to demand that gay people raised in that religious tradition — “oriented inexorably towards that by heritage and birth” — be forced to go to a “gay church” rather than accepted in the institution that claims to be their natural home through heritage?
posted by Lori Heine on
“So, please quit putting us down and dismissing our experiences. Our lives are real, and so are our histories. You may not like the conclusions we reach, but they come from a long train of actual encounters with real live believers.”
Of course they are. No one is saying your experiences are not real. And most of us have had experiences like yours. All we’re saying is that we’ve also had experiences that are different from yours.
I don’t get the logic of how adding our own experiences to yours in any way negates yours. That doesn’t make any sense.
Those in the larger church who do stand up for us certainly deserve to be noticed. Their contribution deserves to be seen. Not only is it unfair to ignore it (or to act as if, because you haven’t experienced it firsthand, that makes it any less real), it is just plain lousy politics.
Human nature being what it is, when somebody does something positive, they are more likely to keep on doing it if it is noticed and appreciated. It saddens and wearies gay-friendly straight Christians when we treat them as if they don’t matter, or simply don’t exist.
Why do so many in our community insist upon behaving as if only the nasty people in the Church are real? The very fact that there IS a controversy and a struggle now in the Church shows it’s no longer possible to go on honestly believing that there is no other side to this.
People are, indeed, responsible for what they choose to do. We are also responsible for what we choose to see.
posted by Brian Miller on
Why do so many in our community insist upon behaving as if only the nasty people in the Church are real?
For the same reason that libertarians tend to insist on behaving as thought the politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties represent the ethos of the broader membership: in short, it’s not unreasonable to judge a group’s general character by who they choose to lead them.
In the case of religious leaders, when they call for execution for gay folks, or condemn them as “morally weak human garbage” — and there’s no outcry or accountability from the membership — such silence represents tacit acceptance of the “acceptability” of those beliefs/statements. . . if not outright approval of them.
Religious people really only have themselves to blame for the current perception in the gay community of their intentions — as affinity groups that can be joined or abandoned at any time, most of their membership have repeatedly chosen to affiliate with and support leadership that, well, “says the darndest things.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Brian, “most” of whose leadership? Are we talking here about ALL churches, or just the Right-Wing-whacko ones?
When I came out, not a single member of my very-Lutheran family said a word against me. I have had nothing but support and love from them since Day One.
I quite realize that this is not everybody’s experience. But I resent the implication that my relatives are somehow less real than other Christians.
At the Pride parade this past weekend (in Phoenix), many from my largely-straight church marched. I know I probably mentioned that already, but I think it bears repeating.
The bishop of our branch of the Lutheran Church, the ELCA, is also openly welcoming toward GLBT people. As this is a worldwide body of believers, it’s hardly happening in some dark little corner.
posted by dalea on
What I suspect Brian touches upon, and what I draw upon, is a long history of watching Christians and how they treat gay people. I have seen these really great church people be open and sympathetic to us. And when the denomination or bishop or whatever cracks down on them, I have seen all the really nice people vanish. Without a trace, leaving us all alone.
When Dignity, the Gay RC group, was banned. All our wonderful straight Catholic allies were nowhere to be seen. No parish offered a safe haven, no prominent lay person spoke up.
I have seen a Methodist Church that welcomed gays be shut by a Bishop. All of the really nice straight Christians accepted forced transfers to other non gay friendly congregations. The gay believers were literally left on the street. Not one gay friendly type came by to help.
So, what you describe is something many of us have seen before. It’s nice while it lasts. But it will end as all the previous outreaches have. These are Churches that have flaked before, over and over, and will undoubtedly do so again.
There are churches that are gay friendly. Quaker. Unitarian Universalist. Religious Science. Unity. Episcopalian. UCC. And there are other religions that are also. NeoPaganism. Buddhism. Judaism.
I come from a Lutheran background also. And have seen the havoc and suffering Lutherans have let be inflicted on gay people. Not to mention what Lutherans themselves have done to us. It’s very nice that they want to let us join in singing ‘Trygare Kan Ingen Vara’, but I don’t trust them at all.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Personally, dalea, I do not blame other Christians for not stepping forward to defend people like yourself who support vandalizing and desecrating churches and vomiting and urinating on Christians.
Or when gay icons like Elton John support a ban on organized religion — with no contrary voices, not even “Bishop” Gene Robinson or Mel White.
Thankfully, as Lori points out, there are loving and accepting Christians out there who can love people who do nothing but heap abuse and hate upon them and their heartfelt beliefs.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And then to Bobby:
I don’t want to be around people who think homosexuality is sinful, no matter how nice they are or aren’t.
And that’s your prerogative and priority.
In Lori’s and my case, our commitment to our orthodoxy outweighs a completely-comfortable environment. Again, priorities and prerogative.
Peaceful coexistence sounds like a fine idea to me.
posted by Lori Heine on
As NDT has said, it is a matter of “priorities and prerogative.”
The bottom line is that the people who want to be in church will find a way to be there. And the ones who don’t will find an excuse not to be. When all those mean people go away, I wonder what their excuse will be.
Straight atheists have had some pretty hairy experiences too. The difference, I have found, is that they’re usually big enough people to stand up and say “I don’t believe in God. Period.” They could scrounge up plenty of excuses, I’m sure, if they wanted to, and some do. But most don’t.
One sure way the church will NOT change is if we don’t stay and fight for it. Will there be setbacks along the way? Of course there will — and some awful ones. Will we be 100% comfortable every moment of the time until then? I kind of doubt it.
It’s simply a matter of taking ownership — and insisting upon that ownership. The Church is MY Church, too. As Luther himself once said, “God help me, here I stand. I can do nothing else.”
The most important relationship I will ever have is the one I have with God. If I fail in that one, nothing else matters. And that, for me, is the bottom line.
posted by Casey on
Amen, Lori.
posted by Brian Miller on
Brian, “most” of whose leadership? Are we talking here about ALL churches, or just the Right-Wing-whacko ones?
Let’s look at the largest mainstream denominations.
1) Roman Catholic. Their late spiritual leader stated that gay people have “no redeeming social value” and their institutional publishing house announced that gays are “objectively disordered.” In Massachusetts, Roman Catholic institutions spent $2 million on an anti-gay advertising campaign that claimed that same-sex marriage would result in the poor and elderly going hungry and becoming homeless, and required that a statement and video be shown at every mass that compared gay people to racists.
2) Southern Baptist. I am not sure I have to go into this in depth, given how well known their stances are (not very pro-gay). They regularly release anti-gay statements, they fund “ex-gay” programs, and at a recent convention, declared that “homosexual orientation is not ’caused’ by hormonal imbalance or genetic factors, but by an unhealthy relationship with one’s parents.” Their vice president for convention relations declared that “It is a fundamental contradiction, to say ‘gay minister,’…The teachings of scripture are plain; that one is called to live a life that is in keeping with the principles the Lord has given us. Homosexuality is a fundamental denial of those principles.”
3) Jehovah’s Witnesses. Again, I don’t think I have to go into detail here since their leadership is quite clear on homosexuality. As Jim Moon, an gay ex-JW blogger, notes, “the Jehovah’s Witness religion teaches its membership to believe that homosexuality is ‘detestable’, ‘an abomination’, ‘abhorrent’, and is caused by demon possession.”
4) Mormons. Another denomination not too keen on “the gays.” In 1995, a Mormon policy document on gays and lesbians stated that “it is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual’s family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit.” A 1997 poll of Brigham Young University students found that a plurality (41%) stated that they would only accept gays as Mormons if they “change their sexual orientation.”
5) Anglicans. Depending on where you go, the news is either great, not so great, or horrible. The US Episcopals and their Canadian bretheren are fighting the good fight and should be commended. However, the British denomination is frosty towards gays, and in the third world it’s especially bad. Anglican Archbishop Akinola in Nigeria has used his wealth and power to successfully pass a law in Nigeria that imprisons out gay people and bans gay people from congregating or discussing gay issues. The vast majority of the Anglican community outside of North America is anti-gay — often to a violent degree as in Africa.
6) Methodists and Presbyterians. They’re going through quite a bit of internal conflict, but generally don’t recognize LGBT folks as equal members of the community, but rather “flawed” and “sinners.”
I could go on and on and on (and also cover other religious traditions such as Islam), but the picture just keeps getting worse. Apart from Reform and Conservative Jews, Quakers, liberal Episcopals, the MCC, and a few other small denominations like the United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, there’s not much to celebrate and the overwhelming institutional orientation is not only homophobic — but rabidly so.
posted by Brian Miller on
when gay icons like Elton John support a ban on organized religion
What makes John a “gay icon,” other than the a priori assertions of people who want to take swipes at the gay community (or promoters of Elton John)?
posted by Brian Miller on
One other thing to note is that the fastest-growing churches in the country are single-location churches that are extensions of evangelical Christianity — and these churches, popping up everywhere, tend to be super-fundamentalist and super-anti-gay.
The churches that are generally accepting of gay people are shrinking and dying (or small to begin with) — Quakers, Episcopals, UCC, MCC.
The churches that are large, powerful and growing are manifestly anti-gay — Catholic, Southern Baptist, evangelical miscellaneous, third world Anglican, etc.
posted by Lori Heine on
The question is a good one. I believe I’ve asked it before, and nobody answered, so I’ll repeat it. If you believe the situation to be so dire, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
Whining doesn’t count. Throwing communion wafers on the floor or using holy water receptacles for urinals “in protest” does not count. Supporting people who do such things (which is as bad as doing them) doesn’t count. Making dire, Chicken Little pronouncements about the fate of the decent people in the Church does not count.
I will ask another question. Are you unaware that in every era of history, there have been mean and nasty people in the Church? Or are you honestly under the impression that gays are the only victims of “Christian” meanness? I hope you know better. If not, maybe Roseanne was right and some of us DO think “it’s all about us.”
Most of the gays who use other people’s meanness as an excuse not to help with the (admittedly-huge) task of helping it to grow forget how many times in the past this battle has been fought — and won — by others. We’re not the first to have to fight it, and we will not be the last.
The basic issue is whether you believe the Church to be an institution that’s strictly human, or one that is both human and divine. If it is the former, then those who cry that all is lost are right. If it is the latter (an idea to which much evidence in history attests), then we have every reason to believe the Holy Spirit will prevail.
But the Holy Spirit does not work by doing everything for us, while we sit around passively and complain that the job’s too hard. That is never how God has worked before, and we have no reason to believe it’s how God’s going to work now.
Those who don’t really believe in the Church don’t belong in it. And those who do believe in the Church had better set their shoulder to the wheel and start pushing. We do, indeed, still have a long way to go.
posted by Brian Miller on
If you believe the situation to be so dire, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
Personally, I’m recognizing organized religion as the superstition useful for political control that it was designed to be — while fully appreciating the right of other to believe whatever myths they choose to embrace.
Of course, should a religious authority or person choose to refer back to his various self-contradictory holy books, then the gloves come off, so to speak. 😉
the Holy Spirit does not work by doing everything for us, while we sit around passively and complain that the job’s too hard
That’s one of the other problems I’ve got with religion. When something bad happens to bad people, the religious claim that it’s God’s punishment.
When something happens to good people, God suddenly becomes a silent laissez-faire observer who invites people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
Like i said earlier, I commend the Soulforce folks for standing up for what they believe and confronting the bigotry that is the basis of their institutions’ belief systems. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept the premises of those belief systems, nor do I have to apologize for not getting involved in trying to convince the superstitious to see reality through the lens of their superstition.
Hope that clarifies my position.
posted by Brian Miller on
Those who don’t really believe in the Church don’t belong in it.
That’s the other annoying thing about organized religious corporations. They demand that their “beliefs” become the underpinning of consideration of legislation and social questions — involving themselves in the most intimate personal decisions imaginable, including in the bedroom.
Yet when their critics strike back, they’re told that they have “no place in the Church.”
That’s another double-standard that’s always struck me as bizarre. The same man who loudly proclaims what I should and should not do with my naughty bits reacts with fury when I criticize his own strangeness. 😉
posted by Lori Heine on
Brian, your responses are so befuddled and confused I hardly know where to begin in refuting them.
As a libertarian, I do NOT believe in using my beliefs or anyone else’s as the “underpinning” for legislation — and for addressing social questions I think they should apply strictly on a voluntary (non-coerced) basis. Nothing I said could be construed otherwise.
There are Christians who believe in instituting theocracy, and then again there are those who do not. Kindly do not confuse the former with the latter. Distortions of this sort do nothing to further your argument.
And if you do indeed believe that Christian beliefs are “superstition,” then of course my comment stands. Those who do not believe in the Church do not belong in it.
You and I differ in that regard. I DO believe in the divine foundations of the Church, therefore instead of seeing a half-empty glass before me, I see one that is half-full. Those who do spiteful, short-sighted, fearful things supposedly in God’s Name do so because they are grievously in error. But they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, therefore I refuse to give up on them. Were I to do so, my behavior would be no more Christian than theirs.
You are confusing two totally different issues. There is, on one hand, the matter of whether those who believe — those who are Christians — ought to stay in the Church and work to help it grow (and other Christians to become better people), or whether they should lose all faith in it and simply abandon it. And on the other hand, there is the question of whether those who do not believe (you yourself claim to be among them) are doing ANYBODY any good by sitting around carping about the problem and getting in the way of people who are trying to do something about it.
If you’re not going to get in there with us and push, then kindly refrain — at the very least — from adding to our burden. You do nobody any good by taking nasty potshots at us.
It sounds, to me, as if you are deeply conflicted about the whole mess. If you truly had not the slightest, tattered remnant of belief, then why all the bitterness and bile toward those of us (like me, NDT and Casey) who do? We certainly haven’t done you any harm — unless you consider prickling your conscience to be harmful.
We are working to make your inclusion and participation in the Church an option that is open to you. You by no means have to choose that option. I would, in fact, defend to the death your right not to.
Time and again, when I talk with other GLBT Christians, I hear the sadness, weariness and discouragement that comes not only from the resistance we meet from bigots within the Church, but from those within our own community who work against us and speak spitefully to us. Other people deserve to have the option you are throwing away with both hands. At the very least, please be decent enough to refrain from hindering our efforts to help them have this option available to them.
And if your own inner conflicts are the problem for you, please speak with somebody about that. I can assure you that there are people out there who are ready, willing and able to lend you a compassionate ear and some good, sound advice.
Which, of course, you are by no means bound to take.
posted by Brian Miller on
As a libertarian, I do NOT believe in using my beliefs or anyone else’s as the “underpinning” for legislation
Unfortunately, virtually every major religious denomination disagrees with your point of view. Hence the Christian Coalition, Catholic anti-gay campaign, Quaker campaigns for welfare, etc.
There are Christians who believe in instituting theocracy, and then again there are those who do not. Kindly do not confuse the former with the latter.
One could say that there are Democrats who believe in instituting socialism and Democrats who are not — and not to confuse the former with the latter, too. Does that mean I should wait around waiting for the 4% of Democrats who like liberty to reform the Democratic Party, and recognize its “inherent value?”
there is the question of whether those who do not believe (you yourself claim to be among them) are doing ANYBODY any good by sitting around carping about the problem and getting in the way of people who are trying to do something about it.
Except that I cannot get in your way — I’m an outsider, remember? All I can do is question the credibility of the institution that you’re trying to reform and challenge its efforts to impose superstition upon the populace through statism.
If you’re not going to get in there with us and push, then kindly refrain — at the very least — from adding to our burden.
By ceasing my work in the secular domain against the theocratic impulse?
Sorry, but that’s not going to happen. Your affinity with these various religious groups is a choice, and I think it’s pretty clear that despite your efforts to make change, change isn’t happening.
I’m not going to stop criticizing the Catholics’ anti-gay campaign, or Peter Akinola’s anti-gay pogrom in Nigeria, to buy time for the Rainbow Sash movement.
Please understand that I don’t oppose what you’re trying to do, but I’m not going to be silent either — especially when what’s being done isn’t really working.
the resistance we meet from bigots within the Church, but from those within our own community who work against us and speak spitefully to us
You seem to have me confused with that straw man over in the cornfield! 😉
As far as a libertarian answer, gay Christians choose their own reality and road to hoe. Objectively speaking, it’s not difficult to go where acceptance exists and leave the people who don’t want you — in both camps — behind.
Instead, you stay behind and hope that people who hate you will one day embrace you.
Why?
I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with the commonly-found need amongst many gay people to be accepted by those who reject them — rather than realizing that rejection is rejection.
No action by LGBT Christians will force the Pope to love them, Jerry Falwell to issue a teary-eyed apology for calling them “perverts,” or Akinola to campaign for the repeal of his law. Yet LGBT Christians in many denominations continue to push, push, push on this front. At a certain point it becomes a vain hope, and I cannot withhold my activities to protect our liberties from theocracy simply to benefit LGBT sisyphean religiosity — equal parts courageous and utterly fruitless.
posted by dalea91505@hotmail.com on
What do I do?
Well I am religiously active. But I am not a Christian. Like many religious lesbians and gay men, I am a Pagan. And I do talk about Paganism with others.
The problem here is that when the discussion turns to gays and religion, some Christian comes along and hijacks the topic. Suddenly we are considering ‘churches’ and ‘scriptures’ and all sorts of Christian specific concepts. These are all alien to the sort of religion I practice. Which means I am left out. And there are quite a few of us who are. Could the Christians perhaps show some consideration for other religions?
I firmly believe gays should show each church the same respect and compassion they have shown us. And no more. Christians may call this ‘blasphemy’ or ‘sacrilege’, but until they are able to see how they do the same to us and our lives, I am not real excited about them and their concerns.
On all the ‘decent people’ in the churches that are anti-gay. If they were truly ‘decent’ they would have left long ago.
posted by Lori Heine on
Brian, Brian, Brian.
Why are you here? What is your purpose? You’re not a “critic,” as you described yourself in an earlier post — you’re an ankle-biter.
As far as resisting theocratic impulses are concerned, I’m right there with you. You and I disagree about religion. I suppose I’d find your reasoning more credible if it wasn’t so angry and petulant. You try for lightness, flippancy and jaunty winks — and you come off like a little boy who hasn’t forgive Mommy, Daddy, the Pope, Jerry Falwell or whoever the hell it is you have such a problem with.
And again, the tired old rhetoric about those of us who have “stayed behind.” That implies advancement on your part, and quite frankly, you haven’t shown any. You are stuck in adolescence, and advancement that ain’t.
I never left the Church because I belong there. To leave would be to concede to the “reasoning” of those who say I don’t. You try to paint certain reactionary elements in the Church (and the cowardly politicians at the top of the hierarchies who are afraid of them) as all that matters. I recognize that they are not.
I don’t give a flying rat’s rear end whether those who do not “accept” me ever come to or not. Given what passes for thought with most of those people, it’s probably a badge of honor that they do not “accept” me.
For the record, those whose minds cannot be changed and who remain intractably against us need to be the ones run out of the Church. I intend to do all I can to help send THEM packing, because they do not belong there.
It’s one of those good-housekeeping chores you do at home: take out the trash.
You are one of those sad, unintentionally-comical figures so common in our community. Boy, by staying out of the Church, you’re really gonna show ’em.
Show ’em what, except that they’re right about you? That you don’t belong in Church, that they’re right that the Church belongs to them, and that when they show us the door, we have the obligation to obediently troop outside like good little boys and girls. You are, in fact, what is known politically as a useful idiot to the enemies of gay rights. (I mean that not as a naughty name, but rather as a political term.)
By all means, please go ahead and keep on keepin’ on in your struggle to fight theocracy. When it comes to that, I’m right beside you. But kindly be adult enough to avoid junior high school condescension about my “superstitions.” I have numerous atheist friends, and I somehow manage to remain friends with them without having to resort to insulting them.
posted by Lori Heine on
And then there’s Dalea…
“I firmly believe gays should show each church the same respect and compassion they have shown us. And no more.”
Yes, peeing in people’s holy water fonts is so constructive. Depending, of course, on whether you’re smart enough to recognize what sort of a message that sort of stunt sends. Again (and I mean it strictly in the political-term sense), people of this sort function as useful idiots for the enemies of gay rights.
They want to believe that we are ALL like you. Thanks so very, very, very much for helping their cause.
“On all the ‘decent people’ in the churches that are anti-gay. If they were truly ‘decent’ they would have left long ago.”
Really, and why would they do this? Because the Church belongs to the bad people and not to them? Evidently they disagree with you. Somehow they’ve gotten the loopy notion that the Church is just as much theirs as it is anybody else’s. Silly, silly them.
You are doing exactly what those who hate us want you to do. Good little minion. The really pathetic thing about this is that you are so out-of-touch with reality that you will then accuse gay Christians of being self-hating!
Pot…meet kettle.
posted by dalea on
OK Lori, I feel that the form of a church plays a very big role in this. If it is a church where local congregations have a great deal of autonomy, then I really don’t have much of a problem with gays staying in a gay friendly congregation. There are Southern Baptist churches that are gay friendly. And usually not SB any longer.
Then there are churches that are hierarchical, where all power comes from the top down. In instances where the leadership is militantly anti-gay, yes, I do feel that gay people and their friends should leave. There is no way to change the prevailing view of the leadership. The bishop is not running for re-election. The next bishop will be just as anti-gay as the current one. IMHE, these people are the ones most in need of encouragement. And most likely to drive you to sarcasm.
Then there are those in the middle. Where the church is somewhat confusedly anti-gay, sort of. Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans seem to fit in here. The range of options here is large: from congregations like yours to rigidly condemning ones.
My own thought is that gay people should not give a nickel to any hierarchical church that is anti-gay. And that other gay people need to constantly remind them not to do so.
posted by Lori Heine on
Dalea, I certainly agree that some church bodies are better bets than others. I haven’t OD’d on any Pollyanna pills; I know very well that there are some really ugly, scary people in the Church as a whole.
I simply believe that the way to change it is to work from within. Polls consistently show that most of those who hate and fear gays don’t think they know any. To paraphrase the old song, to know us is to love us.
I recently interviewed a pastor, for an essay I wrote for the upcoming issue of the GLBT Christian webzine, Whosoever. She claimed that her congregation “welcomes everybody,” and I challenged her on that. I made her see that GLBT folks have heard that too many times before to trust that it is true — unless we are EXPLICITLY welcomed. If she is too chicken to assume that risk, then she should be ashamed of herself — and I think I got that point across to her.
I sent her a copy of my essay (as she asked) so she could review it and give me her feedback. She has yet to respond, and she very well might not. I didn’t pull any punches.
I am no more willing to concede the Church to bigots than I am to concede the country to them. The logic of the former works no better, for me, than it does for the latter.
In the meantime, the denominations and congregations in the squishy middle are the ones I feel that should be worked on. We need to make homophobia as obsolete in the Church as racism has become.
In truth, I get as angry at the hard-core ‘phobes as anybody else does. I just think the Church is too precious to be left to them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Except that I cannot get in your way — I’m an outsider, remember? All I can do is question the credibility of the institution that you’re trying to reform and challenge its efforts to impose superstition upon the populace through statism.
And you are more than welcome to do that.
As long as you stop using the fact that you are gay as your reason for doing it.
Personally, I can see why; it’s more sympathetic to blame antisocial behavior on a condition over which one has little control — kind of like a foulmouthed person claiming they have Tourette’s syndrome, and therefore cannot be held completely responsible for their behavior.
But unfortunately, Mr. Miller, gays like Lori and myself have figured out that nothing about being gay compels you to be inexorably antireligious — and because of that, have gotten quite tired of your dragging our good sexual orientation through the mud as rationalization for your antisocial and hateful behavior towards religion and the religious. All it does is to fulfill whatever petty revenge fantasies or rebelliousness desires you have against the church and religion, and it does an extremely good job of convincing fence-sitters that the homohaters are right, that gays are all antireligious bigots who piss in holy water fonts.
And at least in my case, I will no longer tolerate it — or the actions of enabler organizations like Soulforce who attempt to play into the antireligious beliefs of gays like yourself for support by setting out to “prove” what awful people Christians are by being provocative and getting themselves arrested.
posted by Brian Miller on
They want to believe that we are ALL like you.
I wonder. . . (and this is a purely honest question). . . Did the African American community benefit from working very hard with racists to prove that stereotypes about blacks held by white racists (particularly in Dixie) weren’t true? And did those efforts result in racists renouncing their racism later?
The only case I can think of is Wallace, but he repented of his racism long after history had shown him to be on the wrong side. Were there black people in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s who reached out repeatedly to racists, joined racist institutions, etc. and achieved a coup on the level of getting that institution to change its stance on black people while racist bigotry was still a “mainstream” position?
I think the answers to these questions will help inform the entire “efficacy of working from within” debate.
posted by Brian Miller on
gays like Lori and myself have figured out that nothing about being gay compels you to be inexorably antireligious
Nothing about being gay compels me to be anti-religious either.
My gayness was key to informing my decision to recognize religion as superstition due to its bizarre pronouncements on what it means to be gay, however.
Thus, rather than being “anti-religion,” I simply reject religion entirely. Individuals may choose to be religious and influence their religious affinity groups (something I’ve consistently applauded in this thread).
Hoever, I draw the line at the suggestion implicit in your comments that those of us who choose not to believe the unbelievable are somehow bad, wrong, or “hateful.”
In addition, I don’t criticize religion until religion criticizes (or attempts to impose its will on) all of society. At that point, it moves out of the sphere of being a private affinity group and into the sphere of attempting to make law — and deserves the scrunity, criticism and critical inquiry over its proposals that it often receieves from across the landscape of the American public.
You seem to want things both ways — mixing some people’s religious belief with the law that governs all people, while insisting that those who reject the religion attempting to govern all have no right to comment on it.
posted by Brian Miller on
Soulforce who attempt to play into the antireligious beliefs of gays like yourself
This is another quote demonstrating how closed-minded and black-and-white your thinking is. I doubt that a gay non-believer is of particular interest to Soulforce, especially given that Mel White would probably disagree with me on most theological issues.
After all, he’s a believer, and I’m not.
In addition, most gay nonbelievers don’t pay much attention to religion. Why? Well, it’s not really relevant to us — except when it launches anti-gay campaigns, or campaigns to raise taxes, etc., etc., etc.
So if a negative impression *has* formed in the minds of the non-religious, it’s likely due to the activities of religions themselves to enrich themselves at the expense of those who differ from them in that regard.
Sorry, victimhood schtick ain’t gonna work here. 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thus, rather than being “anti-religion,” I simply reject religion entirely. Individuals may choose to be religious and influence their religious affinity groups (something I’ve consistently applauded in this thread).
Except when you make disparaging remarks about them and insinuate that they’re deluded, such as this post.
The hatefulness comes not from the fact that you choose not to believe, but that you belittle and namecall those who do. Your rhetoric is no different than that cited in the original post:
“Oh. I’m so sorry for David,” he said. “I think he’s deluded.” The place for someone like that, he added, “is on their knees repenting of their sin.
“But here’s a good reaction for you: I still like him.”
I doubt that a gay non-believer is of particular interest to Soulforce, especially given that Mel White would probably disagree with me on most theological issues.
Soulforce’s interest in you has nothing to do with your theology and everything to do with your acceptance and support. That’s why their primary means of garnering it is to go campus to campus and try to provoke reactions that will confirm your belief that all religious people are antigay.
I think Lori has hit on indirectly what I find most annoying about “gay churches”; the fact that they bow to the belief endemic in the gay community that one cannot be gay and religious, and thus remove the religion in emphasis of the gay. Soulforce is a prime example. “Bishop” Gene Robinson and his sermons about Jesus and the apostles being gay and having gay sex is another example.
In addition, most gay nonbelievers don’t pay much attention to religion. Why? Well, it’s not really relevant to us — except when it launches anti-gay campaigns, or campaigns to raise taxes, etc., etc., etc.
Or, in other words, when you can publicly show how “cool” and “outsider” you are by rebelling against it.
posted by Lori Heine on
Brian, so many dark little ironies jump out at me in your reasoning that I hardly know where to begin. I won’t even try to touch upon them all, because I don’t have time to write a 1,000-word comment and I doubt anybody would have the patience to read one.
No one on this website advocates the legislation of personal religious beliefs. You keep trying to ride that hobbyhorse, and you have ridden it smack into the ground.
I presume, by the fact that you’re here in the first place, that you in some way consider yourself a libertarian and/or conservative. Which no doubt means you have experienced the hectoring and downright harassment that comes with such territory. “Self-hating,” they love to scream at us. “How can you be anything other than a Democrat? Don’t you realize that they’re our bestest, truest friends?”
Well, it’s certainly no less annoying to be irrationally attacked for your religious beliefs than it is for your political convictions. I am astonished that so many gay conservatives who are not religious are so hostile to those of us who are. How could the analogy, which is so glaringly obvious, have escaped them?
I am not a Republican. I can’t stomach the current Republican Party. But I’m glad the gay Republicans are there. They’re working — under tremendously difficult circumstances — to make our two-party system one in which both major parties must compete for gay votes. If neither party could take us for granted, there is no question they both would treat us better.
On the other hand, if I got the sort of jollies out of being a victim that so many in our community seem to, I could always sit on the sidelines and shriek at gay Republicans about how “self-hating” they are. That would, I’m sure, be terribly constructive and mature.
Brian, nobody here is trying to convert you to the Christian faith. This is not the venue for such an endeavor. NDT and I are trying to show you that, far from “Stickin’ it to The Man” by being so shrill, petulant and counterproductively defiant, you are actually aiding and abetting the very people who claim to oppose.
You continue to bear out every claim I have made here. You doggedly insist upon ignoring those in the Church who stand up for us, while choosing to see nobody but the bigots.
And then, there’s this:
“You seem to want things both ways — mixing some people’s religious belief with the law that governs all people, while insisting that those who reject the religion attempting to govern all have no right to comment on it.”
That remark was so idiotic, and so patently dishonest, that you ought to be ashamed of yourself. No one here believes in theocracy, and we are fighting the theocrats in the Church from the most effective position — within rather than without. You are like a kid on a gradeschool playground, clamping your hands over your ears and shouting “la-la-la” to every reasonable counterargument made.
posted by Casey on
NDT, could you at least be consistent about what evil thing it is that you claim SoulForce is up to? First you degrade them because they aren’t reaching out to the gay community enough and trying to make nonbelieving gays more traditionalist – which isn’t their mission, though I’ve argued that they can have an indirect impact by demonstrating the power of gay people of faith… then you attack them as gloryhounds and crybabies hell bent on the fun of publicity – which I shot down by pointing out the amount of work they do that is entirely quiet, non-radical and largely under the media radar, and reminding you that sometimes shaming people whose policies cause pain to the innocent works… and now you’re trying to contend that SoulForce doesn’t really care about changing the hearts of minds of institutions with homophobic policies (such as, say, BYU), but rather that all they want to do is garner the acceptance and support of gay atheists by proving that straight Christians are all mindless, hateful bigots? Where on earth do you get this stuff?!
While Brian is wrong that SoulForce doesn’t care about gays like him – they do, to the extent that compassion for all gays who have felt the sting of spiritual violence fuels their desire to try to create a better world as best they know how – he’s closer to correct than you are, in that SoulForce never asks for his support… he is, as I noted above, only indirectly the target of their efforts. Like SoulForce or not, like their methods or not, why can’t you just take them at their word as to their goals? Seems like the more mature, reasonable response to me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Casey, I think we need to outline to what I was responding.
The first was to your statement:
NDT – hasn’t it occurred to you that what SoulForce is doing, by taking part in a form of activism which requires courage and some measure of sacrifice (think of the opportunity costs, if nothing else), is a form of witnessing to their faith?
To which I responded:
If Soulforce wants to witness to their faith to gays, doesn’t it make more sense to be talking to gays, rather than other people?
then you attack them as gloryhounds and crybabies hell bent on the fun of publicity – which I shot down by pointing out the amount of work they do that is entirely quiet, non-radical and largely under the media radar,
Which part of their trespassing on private property in a deliberate attempt to get arrested satisfies that?
now you’re trying to contend that SoulForce doesn’t really care about changing the hearts of minds of institutions with homophobic policies (such as, say, BYU), but rather that all they want to do is garner the acceptance and support of gay atheists by proving that straight Christians are all mindless, hateful bigots?
Soulforce’s message to churches, Casey, is simply this: “It is evil and wrong for you to be against a community whose icons support banning organized religion and whose members support desecrating your altars, pissing in your holy water fonts, vandalizing your buildings, puking and urinating on your members, and saying that your heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths. You must accept us or else.”
Now, is that about changing minds….or setting yourself up to fail, and by doing so, confirm the antireligious bigotry of the loudest voices of the gay community?
Soulforce doesn’t get acceptance in the gay community because they’re effective. They get it because they’re the perfect tokens; people like Mr. Miller can point to them as examples that gays can be “religious”, but they keep their mouths shut when gays use their sexual orientation to justify antireligious hate and bigotry.
posted by OMG on
Brian Miller said: “In addition, most gay nonbelievers don’t pay much attention to religion. Why? Well, it’s not really relevant to us — except when it launches anti-gay campaigns, or campaigns to raise taxes, etc., etc., etc.”
And then NorthDallas30 said: “Or, in other words, when you can publicly show how “cool” and “outsider” you are by rebelling against it.”
Did this NorthDallas person just say that the only reason a gay person would have to protest against religiously inspired anti-gay campaigns is to sound and look good or whatever?
I wish gay Americans could become more involved with their conservative/libertarian counterparts and don’t believe they should be subjugated to indifference or hostility by their liberal brothers and sisters. In fact, though I’m not very kin to the Republican philosophy, I believe that to be gay and affiliated to a conservative party, and still be fighting for gay equality, demands a kind and measure of self-sacrifice and braveness a gay liberal wouldn’t have to demand upon himself. I mean, a Republican gay right’s advocate, I believe, is by no means a self-hater ego.
However, I wouldn’t say this is true about a person such as NorthDallas. It gets tired having to watch this person, in every thread he comments in, whoring after and being so uncritical about everything Christian and conservative to the extant he insinuates again and again the bigotry gay people get from the extreme right is somehow justified by the venomous attitudes the radical gay activists display (he also believes Santorum, who apparently doesn’t even recognize the right an individual has to his privacy, is being unjustifiebly picked on and persecuted by the gay left). And now he opposes to protests against anti-gay capmpaigns. Son, the Independent Gay Forum is not about being blind to the occasional conservative/Christian bigotry. I believe this forum’s writers are not too concerned about partisanship and have testified they try to make their critiques be heard by both the far right and the far left – which is NOT what you have been doing so far.
posted by Lori Heine on
If hysteria could be converted into fuel, there would be enough in this commentary thread alone to power Phoenix, Arizona for a week.
NDT made pretty clear, I do believe, that it is SoulForce’s methods that merit his disapproval. He isn’t criticizing them for standing up for compassion and inclusion, but for engaging in grand street theater that results in people being marched off to jail.
Excuse me, but I rather thought this was a debate about WHAT WORKED as opposed to WHAT DIDN’T.
Somebody please explain to me how deliberately provoking people, making them angry and making them look bad is going to convince very many of them to change their hearts or minds.
Ask yourself, in all honesty, if you were straight and a member of one of those churches, how you would be likely to respond. The odds are pretty good it would be no different than the way such people usually do to tactics like those of which SoulForce is so fond.
Again, I like a lot of what SoulForce does. They do a lot of great things. I simply think they should spend more time on the activities that are more likely to make gay Christians look like responsible citizens instead of raving lunatics.
posted by Lori Heine on
Additionally, I would like to point out that when bigots in the Church were attempting to use the very Bible itself to “justify” slavery and racism, African-Americans chose to respond in a much different (nobler and more intelligent) way.
Know what? They didn’t buy into the notion that because the bigots tried to hide behind the Church, that meant it belonged to them.
In the entire history of the movements for the abolition of slavery and for civil rights, there was no point more pivotal — more crucial to the success of these movements — than that one.
SoulForce even models itself after the example set by Dr. King, as well as of Mohandas Gandhi and other champions of human rights. And that is quite commendable.
But how many times, I wonder, did King or Gandhi exhort people to pee in holy water, trample on communion hosts or engage in any of the other nonsensical activities we all too often see in the quest for gay inclusion in the Church?
Why, gee whiz, would that be…like…never?
The entire rationale behind SoulForce is that the Church does, indeed, belong to all of us — including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Sorry, but I don’t need any lectures about what SoulForce stands for.
It is pretty silly to argue that you support any part of what that organization does when you badmouth people who have chosen to stay in the Church and fight for full inclusion instead of beating a whimpering and self-pity-laden retreat.
Additionally, the reason why the “more inclusive” churches are losing membership is because they are so liberal that they have abandoned most, of not all, of the traditional tenets of the Christian faith. Gee, can’t imagine why some gays might be less than enthusiastic about joining such a church, preferring instead to join one that may be harder to fit into, but closer to their beliefs.
This is exactly where the “ex-gay” scams get so much of their new blood. When they come out, people are warned, by their pastors, families and friends, that they will not be able to find a church that welcomes them — and that at the same time teaches the truth. Lo and behold, they all too often find out that this is true.
This is why more time needs to be spent helping those in more-conservative churches to understand and accept us. Will it take an effort? Yes. Almost anything worth doing usually does.
posted by Brian Miller on
Somebody please explain to me how deliberately provoking people, making them angry and making them look bad is going to convince very many of them to change their hearts or minds.
One could ask the same of the religious leaders you’re trying to sway — in a more valid way, incidentally.
No one on this website advocates the legislation of personal religious beliefs.
That’s a red herring. Religion regularly advocates laws based on its beliefs, and spends beaucoup bucks to support them (take the RCC’s $2 million campaign in Massachusetts against gays as an example).
The RCC isn’t advocating that everyone become Catholic, but they are advocating that laws that punish people who live differently from Catholic beliefs be passed.
That’s indisputable.
it’s certainly no less annoying to be irrationally attacked for your religious beliefs than it is for your political convictions
I’m a big boy, and I can defend the rationality of libertarianism — which is a quite robust philosophy. I’d hate to be in the position of defending the rationality of religion. . . a primary reason I’m a nonbeliever.
in other words, when you can publicly show how “cool” and “outsider” you are by rebelling against it.
Sorry, do I know you? You seem to think you’re awfully familiar with my motivations, technique and style — certainly with a greater degree of familiarity than can be gleaned from a couple of posts on a web site.
He isn’t criticizing them for standing up for compassion and inclusion, but for engaging in grand street theater that results in people being marched off to jail.
Yet I’m sure he regards anti-abortion protestors marched off for similar reasons as heroes — and will promptly cite his religious beliefs for this inconsistency. 😉
did King or Gandhi exhort people to pee in holy water, trample on communion hosts or engage in any of the other nonsensical activities we all too often see in the quest for gay inclusion in the Church
I’ve never seen reports of Soulforce doing any of these things.
Hyperbole doesn’t help the matter any.
Since gay inclusion in the Church is an abstract novelty from my perspective, I applaud those who are trying to make things better for themselves. My only commentary is related to the excessive role that religion has in legislation, which is why I’ll comment when appropriate on that role.
posted by Brian Miller on
when bigots in the Church were attempting to use the very Bible itself to “justify” slavery and racism, African-Americans chose to respond in a much different (nobler and more intelligent) way.
They also founded their own churches, rather than begging Jerry Falwell or the SBC to take them in. Reconciliation came years afterwards when racism was so out of favor that the SBC was embarrassed into doing the right thing.
Quite instructive, I think.
posted by Lori Heine on
Brian, if your only problem is you don’t want the churches legislating their morality, then why all the lengthy posts addressing every point NDT or I make?
As to African-Americans forming their own churches, in many cases they certainly did. So, too, do many gays — and although I personally choose not to belong to a “gay” church, I applaud those who do. Many times, they have their own church because their theology is too conservative for them to feel comfortable in one of the more-liberal churches that welcome them.
What African-Americans did NOT do was cry, “Waaaaaa! They’re so meaaaaan! We can’t belieeeeve ’cause those white people are so mean!” They recognized that God is bigger than any number of bigots.
As far as our views on legislation are concerned, I’m afraid the “red herring” is the notion that ANYONE involved in politics manages to keep his or her most principal, guiding convictions — whatever those may be — out of the picture. That’s bull. Even atheists see the world according to their own most deeply-held beliefs, and it is inescapable that they will seek to influence society, in the political sphere, on the basis of those beliefs.
I’m sure you will probably try to tell me that when an atheist does this, it is harmless. Gays and lesbians in the Soviet Union, who were often thrown into mental hospitals by their “tolerant” non-Christian government, might have a thing or two to say about that.
It is foolish and naive to think that simply “taking religion out of politics” will put an end to the problems that religious conviction bring into it.
The non-establishment clause of the Constitution forbids the establishment of any State-sanctioned religion. It gets threatened all the time, and the Religious Right has justifiably raised our hackles about that. Had the Federal Marriage Amendment passed, it would have violated four existing amendments to the Constitution — essentially turning it into a self-contradictory document, and thus destroying it. We were right to speak out against that, and we must do our utmost to educate people about the dangers that such measures pose.
We are certainly not on opposite sides about everything. But if your purpose is truly to keep this country from becoming a theocracy, you should be able to do that without taking gratuitous swipes at people’s faith.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, I wouldn’t say this is true about a person such as NorthDallas. It gets tired having to watch this person, in every thread he comments in, whoring after and being so uncritical about everything Christian and conservative to the extant he insinuates again and again the bigotry gay people get from the extreme right is somehow justified by the venomous attitudes the radical gay activists display (he also believes Santorum, who apparently doesn’t even recognize the right an individual has to his privacy, is being unjustifiebly picked on and persecuted by the gay left).
What this reminds me of, OMG, are the parents of spoiled children, who quite often “wish” their kids wouldn’t go around being nasty little hellions to other people, but who, when somebody points out the behavior and the consequences of their little cherub, either attack that person or try to minimize the child’s misdeed. Oddly enough, the kids figure out quickly that Mommy and Daddy’s hand-wringing never translates into real action — and thus ignore it accordingly, continuing to do as they please and becoming even more outrageous.
Similarly, OMG, you “wish” gay liberals would treat gay conservatives with more respect, you “wish” people would recognize the self-sacrifice and braveness that comes with taking such stances, and you “wish” that people would realize that Republican gays are by no means self-hating. But then, when one of them has the gall to point out that the gay community and its so-called “religious” organizations like Soulforce seem to have no problem with the bad behavior of gays, you attack this person, claiming that you’re justified in doing so since he doesn’t criticize Christians enough, he doesn’t demonize Rick Santorum enough, and he’s self-hating.
The last leap that needs to be taken in gay activism is for people like yourself, who still realize on some level the wrongness of the notion that being gay exempts you from every rule of civilized society, to stop enabling and start buttkicking those who have used sexual orientation as an excuse for any bit of antisocial behavior known to mankind that they want to practice.
But until then, as long as you, Soulforce, and the shrieking gay leftists you both protect perpetuate the notion that being gay gives you the right to demand the banning of organized religion, desecrate altars, piss in holy water fonts, vandalizing buildings, puke and urinate on religious people, and say that their heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths….expect no quarter or sympathy.
posted by dalea on
Lori sez:Somebody please explain to me how deliberately provoking people, making them angry and making them look bad is going to convince very many of them to change their hearts or minds.
They have no hearts or minds to begin with. We are talking about automatons, beings that simply rote recite. Not actual people.
On their so called ‘religion’. I see this as a system of operant and sympathetic magic. Which I can not honestly call ‘religion’. Just a variant on ‘step on a crack, break your mother’s back’. Why do you keep dignifying these clearly magical operations as ‘religion’?
Would you please show some respect for those who are not Christians? Difficult as that might be, it would help.
posted by Lori Heine on
Dalea says of straight conservative Christians,
“They have no hearts or minds to begin with. We are talking about automatons, beings that simply rote recite. Not actual people.”
Wow, that is really bigoted, hateful rhetoric! They must be demonized to the point of dehumanization. Whatever it is you stand for, Dalea, it certainly isn’t tolerance. Whatever you’re fighting, it’s clearly not bigotry.
I know a lot of straight, conservative Christians. Even those who struggle with the issue of gay inclusion are not “automatons.” I’m sorry you find the Christian faith so threatening that you must turn it into a nasty little cartoon, but you are being grossly unfair. No wonder people who speak as you do have been unsuccessful in getting conservative Christians to listen to you.
“Why do you keep dignifying these clearly magical operations as ‘religion’?”
I don’t dismiss them as “clearly magical operations.” The Christian faith is my faith, too. Not only have you slandered straight conservative Christians, you have slandered me.
“Would you please show some respect for those who are not Christians? Difficult as that might be, it would help.”
As is the case with so many things in the grownup world, Dalea, perhaps when you prove yourself capable of the respect you demand from others, you’ll begin to get it.
posted by Tim Hulsey on
ND30 writes:
Call me crazy, but I don’t recall the Gospels and the Epistles talking about Jesus and his disciples trying to force their way in front of the Jewish leaders and the Romans, TV cameras in tow, deliberately breaking the laws and doing their best to get arrested.
I don’t need your permission to call you crazy, ND30, any more than I need your permission to expose your bizarre blame-the-gays-for-everything mentality. But before you start talking about what Jesus did or didn’t do, you really should read your Bible again, and pay attention this time. Those early Christians, Jesus included, weren’t fresh-scrubbed British character actors, like you’ve seen in these movies. These guys were scary.
Jesus, according to biblical texts, barged into the holiest building in second-temple Judaism, overturned tables, turned valuable livestock loose, and generally made a violent spectacle of himself while stating barely veiled claims of godhead. More to the point, he drove perfectly peaceful individuals — who happen to be selling the animals Jewish law required for ritual sacrifices — out of the temple with a makeshift whip. (Ouch!)
It was a violent act of religious extremism, and could even be construed as outright sacrilege. And it runs completely against the Soulforce creed of nonviolence.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t recall the Gospels and the Epistles talking about Jesus and his disciples trying to force their way in front of the Jewish leaders and the Romans, TV cameras in tow, deliberately breaking the laws and doing their best to get arrested.
Goodness me. I know I’m an attention-getting anti-religious atheist because it’s cool and all, but even I remember the tale of Jesus overturning the money-changers’ tables in the temple and driving out the merchants trying to sell sacrificial animals and indulgences.
If Jesus were around today, ND30 would doubtlessly be decrying him as an unBiblical liberal troublemaker, no doubt. 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It was a violent act of religious extremism, and could even be construed as outright sacrilege.
Absolutely.
If it weren’t the Son of God doing it.
Given that such actions were in HIS temple under HIS order and HIS choice over what was and wasn’t acceptable, those vendors are lucky that all they got was a whip.
Moreover, keep in mind that Jesus kept the Jewish Law perfectly. He even counseled obedience to the civil authority. He would be kicked out of Soulforce for refusal to participate in their deliberate lawbreaking and rebellious behavior.
And, while your attempt to excuse human gays for demanding the banning of organized religion, desecrating altars, pissing in holy water fonts, vandalizing buildings, puking and urinating on religious people, and saying that their heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths by comparing them to the Son of God’s actions are typical of enabler gays like yourself, it makes no sense to anyone else.
Instead of dealing with clear examples of antireligious hate BY gays based on the fact that they ARE gay, you attack those who point the examples out. Why should religious people believe you or Soulforce when it is so blatantly obvious that you support and protect antireligious hate and bigotry by other gays?
posted by Brian Miller on
your only problem is you don’t want the churches legislating their morality, then why all the lengthy posts addressing every point NDT or I make
Several reasons:
1) We’re in thoughtful dialogue, which means introspection and consideration of others’ points of view — with attendant analysis;
2) You (and especially ND30) are misrepresenting not only Soulforce, but also nonbelievers’ positions and activities;
3) Religion doubtlessly has tremendous power over government legislation, regardless of the nonestablishment clause, and you seem to be completely opposed to acknowledging that fact and the perception that anti-gay religionists’ legal crusades have created in the gay community.
posted by Brian Miller on
If it weren’t the Son of God doing it.
Given that such actions were in HIS temple under HIS order and HIS choice over what was and wasn’t acceptable, those vendors are lucky that all they got was a whip.
Wow, so now all one has to do is claim to be the Messiah and it’s all hunky-dory!
(This is why I despair when trying to reason with religionists. Whenever their arguments become illogical, they advance superstition in its place and then become “insulted” when it’s indicated that it’s illogical).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….the problem is, Mr. Miller, is that I didn’t invoke what you are calling “superstition”. Mr. Hulsey did — as an excuse for gays supporting banning organized religion, desecrating altars, pissing in holy water fonts, vandalizing buildings, puking and urinating on church members, and saying that their heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths.
Do you intend to criticize him for advancing “superstition” in place of “illogical arguments”?
Or were you all too willing to accept his “superstition” because it supported your illogical argument that there was nothing wrong with gays supporting banning organized religion, desecrating altars, pissing in holy water fonts, vandalizing buildings, puking and urinating on church members, and saying that their heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths?
Now, to deal with your more-specific argument.
The RCC isn’t advocating that everyone become Catholic, but they are advocating that laws that punish people who live differently from Catholic beliefs be passed.
Laws that punish stealing and murder punish people who live differently from Catholic beliefs, but I don’t see you arguing against them.
You’re merely trying to put a rational face on what is patently antireligious bigotry, Mr. Miller. The fact that you say nothing when the Catholic Church supports laws that you do, but demand they be publicly penalized and blocked by law from expressing their views when they don’t, makes that much obvious.
posted by Lori Heine on
“You (and especially ND30) are misrepresenting not only Soulforce, but also nonbelievers’ positions and activities;”
Mr. Miller, the problem with your claim here is that I have many friends who are members of SoulForce, have studied SoulForce’s literature extensively and keep up closely with the organization’s activities as they are reported not only in the mainstream media but also in the GLBT Christian media.
Exactly what have I said here about their activities, except that they do a lot of things of which I certainly do approve and some that I do not? The only thing of which I have said I specifically disapprove is spend so much time getting arrested.
Are you trying to tell us they don’t do that? Be more specific in your criticisms, please.
As far as what I have said about the positions and activities of nonbelievers, I am merely commenting on things that you and other nonbelievers have said here. Am I trying to claim that ALL nonbelievers engage in the same activities? Of course I’m not, and you cannot point to anything I’ve said here to prove otherwise.
The claims being made here, by those clearly hostile to Christianity, seem to wiffle-waffle back and forth between calls to overcome theocracy (the only reasonable proposal you have made, usually resorted to as a fallback position when your more-extreme and dubious statements are challenged) and very juvenile, “I’m gonna shock Mommy and Daddy” sneers against Christians.
In one breath you tell us our faith is based upon nothing but superstition, then in the next, you claim you’re just trying to combat theocracy. Which is it really, pray tell?
Whatever that is, it most certainly is not “thoughtful dialogue” or “introspection and consideration of others’ points of view.”
posted by PCT on
“Jesus kept the Jewish law perfectly”? Nonsense.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Brian Miller | April 17, 2007, 8:08pm: I’ll often challenge “orthodox” Catholics to ask why they insist that homosexuality is a “choice” (when it isn’t).em>
Christers pretend, against all reason, that homosexuality is a choice because they desperately want to make it a sin. There is no other way since, as St. Augustine put it, “there can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth.”
North Dallas Thirty | April 20, 2007, 3:47pm: Or were you all too willing to accept his “superstition” because it supported your illogical argument that there was nothing wrong with gays […] saying that [church members’] heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths?
Why exactly would gays or anyone else be required to express respect for what they consider absurd and dangerous fairy tales? A religion is just a set of beliefs and, as such, is not immune to challenge and criticism. Let it compete freely in the arena of ideas. If it fails there, then it deserves to do so.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Brian Miller | April 17, 2007, 8:08pm: I’ll often challenge “orthodox” Catholics to ask why they insist that homosexuality is a “choice” (when it isn’t).
Christers pretend, against all reason, that homosexuality is a choice because they desperately want to make it a sin. There is no other way since, as St. Augustine put it, “there can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth.”
North Dallas Thirty | April 20, 2007, 3:47pm: Or were you all too willing to accept his “superstition” because it supported your illogical argument that there was nothing wrong with gays […] saying that [church members’] heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths?
Why exactly would gays or anyone else be required to express respect for what they consider absurd and dangerous fairy tales? A religion is just a set of beliefs and, as such, is not immune to challenge and criticism. Let it compete freely in the arena of ideas. If it fails there, then it deserves to do so.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact that “gay” men have married women and fathered children with them makes it quite clear that homosexuality is not an automatic biological imperative or preventative of heterosexual relationships.
But as long as gays can claim homosexuality is an inexorable biological absolute, they can use it as an excuse for antisocial behavior — such as Mr. Miller and Mr. Horsville do for their antireligious bigotry.
Those of us who are gay and Christian have thought through the matter far more extensively. In my case, the answer is simple: the greater sin would be in establishing a relationship, marrying, and having children with a person to whom I honestly admit that I could not devote my entire being and person.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
North Dallas Thirty | April 21, 2007, 2:00pm: The fact that “gay” men have married women and fathered children with them makes it quite clear that homosexuality is not an automatic biological imperative or preventative of heterosexual relationships.
The fact that some homosexual men have married women and fathered children does not affect their sexual orientation in any way. It is clear they were not likely to beget children with stricly homosexual relationships.
posted by Lori Heine on
Whoa, Mr. Horsville! Why don’t you go back and read the article that launched this thread to begin with, so you’ll know what the conversation is about?
Granted there have been some others here (such as Mr. Miller) who have gotten sidetracked into spleen-venting against Christianity. But if you will recall, the article is about how best to protest the exclusion of gays from Christian institutions — SoulForce being the model here proposed.
I’m sorry to rain on your self-righteous little parade, but most GLBT Christians who comment on blogs do not particularly care what you think of our faith. We didn’t ask, and we find your compulsion to tell us anyway quite boring. It says nothing about us, but volumes about you. If you need to tell your parents, your childhood pastor or whoever else how angry they’ve made you, do us all a favor and say it to them. We are tired of being drafted to stand in as surrogate targets for your wrath.
Do we wish you well in resolving your conflicts? Of course we do. But nobody comes to a blog like this to “save” people. We come for (hopefully adult) discussion.
“Christers,” as you so respectfully call us, do not all think alike. Once again, if you must persist in believing that we do, that says little about us, but a great deal about you.
posted by dalea on
This is why I despair when trying to reason with religionists. Whenever their arguments become illogical, they advance superstition in its place and then become “insulted” when it’s indicated that it’s illogical.
You got it. We are dealing with truly delusional types.
Is Lori Heine just another screen name for NC30?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact that some homosexual men have married women and fathered children does not affect their sexual orientation in any way.
So you can have heterosexual relationships and be gay, or, it follows, have homosexual relationships and be straight.
Or, in other words, your sex life has nothing to do with being “gay” or “straight”.
In which case, being “gay” is a choice that is not in any way dependent on your sex life.
Please explain, using logic and rationality, Mr. Horsville, how it is possible for a gay man to have sex with a woman and father children, when being gay is an irrevocable, unchangeable biological constant, over which one exercises no conscious control whatsoever and in which no choice is involved.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…and when gays who have based their antireligious bigotry on their homosexuality for years are confronted with the example of gays who are not antireligious bigots, they take the illogical and delusional superstition that they are the same person.
As I recall, dalea, you were the one who tried to cite the marketing study demonstrating that your antireligious hate and bigotry was held by a distinct and tiny minority of gays. Are you now going to call what you claim are the majority of gays “delusional”?
Please confirm for us that you believe all religious gays of any sort are “delusional”.
posted by Hank on
I would think the answer to your question is “undoubtably”, dalea.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Lori Heine | April 21, 2007, 8:48pm: Whoa, Mr. Horsville! Why don’t you go back and read the article that launched this thread to begin with, so you’ll know what the conversation is about?
Since I only reacted to other posters’ comments, which I quoted, I believe my replies were not unrelated to the ongoing conversation.
I’m sorry to rain on your self-righteous little parade…
What exactly is the connection between your ramblings and my previous post, in which I simply pointed out that the absurd “homosexuality is a choice” claim has a theological origin, and that religion is not immune to challenge and criticism?
“Christers,” as you so respectfully call us, do not all think alike.
Really? Could it be why I used the restrictive term Christers rather than the generic term Christians in my previous post?
North Dallas Thirty | April 22, 2007, 1:48am: Please explain, using logic and rationality, Mr. Horsville, how it is possible for a gay man to have sex with a woman and father children, when being gay is an irrevocable, unchangeable biological constant, over which one exercises no conscious control whatsoever and in which no choice is involved.
Sexual orientation cannot possibly be chosen because you cannot choose whom you’re attracted to. You can only decide to act upon an attraction or not. When people who are attracted to the same sex decide nevertheless to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex in order to beget children, it is only a demonstration of willpower, not an indication that their sexual orientation changed.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Is Lori Heine just another screen name for NC30?”
No, I am a distinct individual. Too bad if you cannot deal with that. I realize that the compulsion to lump together different people with whom you have disagreements, thereby to separate their little club from yours, is very strong. I used to do that, too — back in about the third grade.
For the record, I do not believe sexual orientation is chosen or changeable. As I am a Christian, and know any number of other Christians who agree with me on this issue (many of them straight), then obviously not all Christians believe that sexual orientation is chosen or changeable.
Reality = that stuff that’s right in front of your face, very plainly, for you to see — if you choose to be honest about it.
The reason the number of straight Christians accepting reality is increasing is because of those of us who bother to interact with them so they can learn what we’re really like. Every bit of research done on how minds are changed on this issue shows that there is nothing more powerful and constructive we can do.
Mr. Horsville, indeed, it is helpful to know that “Christers” are a thing distinct from Christians in general. It might be instructive to know how you think “Christers” differentiate from just plain old Christians. Are they people who hate gays? People of traditional theology? Some combination thereof?
I believe that GLBT Christians of traditional theology need to stand up and be counted — even when the churches that welcome them don’t like it. I fail to see how it makes for a welcoming worship environment when a church that supposedly welcomes us tells us we must change our entire belief system to accommodate every nutty new idea that floats down the pike.
One of the reasons many traditionalist Christians are afraid to see gays welcomed in their churches is because they fear the other wholesale, sweeping changes they think will come along with it. As I don’t like most of the other potential changes any more than they do, I think it might be a good idea for me to speak up about this more than I have in the past. Then those of good will and integrity will no longer be able to claim that “all those gays” want to change everything about their church.
posted by Lori Heine on
P.S.: For the record, Dalea, I never use a “screen name” to make my opinions known. I always stand up and use my own name.
I do, indeed, get plenty of potshots for being so up-front. These range from snide remarks, like yours, to actual death theats.
I don’t think it takes very much to hide behind a cutesy-pie “screen name” and make bitchy remarks about other people. It certainly takes neither integrity nor courage.
posted by Brian Miller on
It appears that the arguments claiming that Soulforce isn’t driving positive change have just been thoroughly popped:
In what is being hailed as the Equality Ride?s first victory in the changing of policies discriminating against openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students at Christian colleges & universities across the country, Brigham Young University announced yesterday that they have revised their student code of conduct policies regarding openly gay students and the ?advocacy? of LGBT civil and human rights.
…
The revised code states that ?Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or orientation and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. . . . One?s stated sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity.?
The previous code identified ?any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature? as violations of the honor code.
Is the “code” still absurd, hypocritical superstitious bunk? Of course. But it’s been amended to be slightly less ridiculous and superstitious than it was before — precisely the “progress” that religious LGBTers want, right?
It seems to me that their critics in the LGBT “believing” community should hop on board the bus — Soulforce have done in 4 weeks what their critics haven’t been able to do in 4 decades.
posted by Brian Miller on
Why are you here? What is your purpose? You’re not a “critic,” as you described yourself in an earlier post — you’re an ankle-biter.
Actually, I’m a gay person who doesn’t believe that a lack of “faith” means that I don’t have the right to criticize the significant shortcomings of “church” activites vis-a-vis gays.
I’m also not a Democrat, but I criticize them.
I’m not Nigerian, but I’m working against Akinola’s new anti-gay law (Akinola’s one of your fellow church-goers, BTW).
I’m not Algerian (nor Muslim), but I’m working to lobby the government of the USA to liberalize asylum laws for gay Muslims from Algeria and elsewhere facing death at the hands of “sharia” law.
So yes, so long as the “churches” touch upon my life with their various nefarious initiatives, I’ll be here — biting the ankles of statist superstition the world over. 😉
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. Miller: I have no problem with what you do or do not believe. That is your business. And I, too, am opposed to statist “superstition” — or to statist religious coercion of any sort.
Do I care that you feel the need to use the word “superstition” with regard to religion, thereby gratuitously insulting every person of faith who reads this thread? No, of course not.
If repeating, hundreds and hundreds of times, that the religious beliefs that so scare you are mere “superstition” gets you through the night, then follow your bliss.
People of faith, in the GLBT community, are accustomed to anxiety-management under the guise of political discource. We get it all the time.
Poor NDT, in particular, is getting quite a shelling here. He has expressed opinions that do not bow to political correctness, so certain commenters are determined to punish him for it.
For crying out loud, we MUSTN’T have gay people expressing independent opinions, without fear of censure, or exercising their religious freedom! NOT in America!
Why are the opinions of people of faith so indistinguishable, to you, from statist boogie-monsters on the march? I don’t know of anybody in our community who lacks a belief in, and a commitment to, religious freedom for all. And neither NDT nor myself has said anything that would indicate otherwise.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When people who are attracted to the same sex decide nevertheless to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex in order to beget children, it is only a demonstration of willpower, not an indication that their sexual orientation changed.
Impossible, Mr. Horsville.
According to gay leftists, it is completely impossible for gay men or lesbian women to choose to have normal heterosexual relationships. It is biologically impossible. “Willpower” implies choice, and gay leftists insist that there is no choice involved in the decision.
And Mr. Miller, I want you to say this: you and your fellow leftists who support the publicity-seeking organization Soulforce consider it totally and completely “gay-positive” for organizations to allow gays as long as they remain completely celibate.
And if not, then BYU just played you for suckers. 🙂
posted by PCT on
So, Mr. Thirty, since you obviously are not a “gay leftist”, would you care to share your testimony with us? When did you decide not to have a “normal” heterosexual relationship? And by the way, I would guess that most anyone who is truly gay – leftist, rightist, or somewhere in between – would agree that their orientation is not a “choice”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When did you decide not to have a “normal” heterosexual relationship?
When I decided that I enjoyed having relationships with men more than I did having widespread social, religious, or other acceptance. The other reasons simply weren’t compelling enough.
My watershed moment was during a trip to Germany, when one of my friends’s elderly grandmother pointed out to me that, because of my looks and heritage, under the Nazis, I would have been required to join the SS and likely sent to their equivalent of a breeding farm. I laughed at first, thinking of how impossible that would be…..but then she pointed out that, had I not complied, my family likely would have been killed.
It’s at that point I realized….we all make choices about what we’re going to do, and those are determined by our priorities. I would have given up mansex in a heartbeat if I had to to save my family’s life. I simply have the luxury of not having to do so.
And frankly, as I pointed out, 5the “gay is not a choice” mantra is used most loudly by those who have antisocial behaviors — public sex, lewdness, drug use, antireligious bigotry, support of homophobic Democrat politicians — for which it provides a convenient cover.
posted by Lori Heine on
In my own life, my watershed moment was the realization that I wanted to grow old with someone I truly loved — that whoever the primary other in my life turned out to be, it had to be someone to whom I could give as good as I got in terms of love and commitment. Sex, for me, was indeed a consideration, as a deep and satisfying sexual bond with the primary other is the ultimate in (I believe God-given) the potential to express and share love. But sex was, nonetheless, a secondary consideration.
That having been said, though I have found that I can only have that sort of deep, profound and mutual bond with a woman rather than a man, at some point it was still MY CHOICE.
I did not decide to “come out” as a lesbian until I could come out to myself. I figured out what I truly felt and believed about that aspect of my nature before I made any grand announcements to any of the other people in my life. I was blessed with a great support-system, and everybody happened to accept me. But if they hadn’t, I would still have accepted myself — and most importantly of all, I knew I was accepted by God.
For me, it was the discovery of gay-positive Christianity that turned the corner. Had I been forced to accept that “all” of Christianity condemned me, I would have done my best to live a celibate life. I can’t force that on anyone else, as it is dependent on one’s deepest convictions, especially about God. But I am truly puzzled by the attitude, so prevalent in the GLBT community, that God is a secondary consideration — if and when “He” is considered at all.
If you believe that God (should “He” exist) hates you for being gay, I can see where that would open a real can of worms about religious faith. But IT IS A MATTER OF CONVICTION AND PRIORITIES. It is a matter of choice.
Christians believe that the gift of free will (which can, admittedly, sometimes seem a curse) is a dimension of our having been created in God’s image. It is one of the most sacred aspects of our being. To insist that one has no choice about how one lives ones life, or to the values to which one commits, is to Christians an insult to the God who made us, and to our very nature as creatures of God.
I hope this clears up the view that most Christians hold regarding choice and the role of free will.
posted by Brian Miller on
the need to use the word “superstition” with regard to religion, thereby gratuitously insulting every person of faith who reads this thread
It’s not insulting, it’s descriptive. That one has faith that its true doesn’t change the fact that it is superstition until there’s factual proof of its basis.
Mr. Miller, I want you to say this: you and your fellow leftists
I used to think you were a one-trick pony with this phrase, ND, but it appears you’re more a one-trick beaten dead horse.
I mean, what else is there to say? LOL!
he “gay is not a choice” mantra is used most loudly by those who have antisocial behaviors — public sex, lewdness, drug use
Thank you for pointing this out.
To underscore ND30s message — those of you who subscribe to the mainstream science that identifies sexual orientation as an inherent characterist are perverted, leftwing druggies who regularly flash people walking by and fuck on the sidewalk in front of elementary schools.
I’m so glad we have gay conservatives to put everything into perspective for us! 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
To underscore ND30s message — those of you who subscribe to the mainstream science that identifies sexual orientation as an inherent characterist
We already discussed that, Mr. Miller; I like to call it the “McGreevey proof”.
You and your fellow gay leftists insist that being gay is a biological imperative, completely unshakeable or unchangeable — which would mean that no gay man could ever possibly have a relationship, sex, or children with a heterosexual woman, especially not multiple times.
Therefore, either former governor Jim McGreevey does not exist….or he’s not gay.
And I repeat myself. Those gays like yourself who spread the fallacy that there is no choice whatsoever involved in homosexual behavior are invariably the ones using it as an excuse for antisocial behavior —- be it public sex, lewdness, drug use, antireligious bigotry, support of homophobic Democrat politicians, whatever — for which it provides a convenient cover.
posted by Brian Miller on
You and your fellow gay leftists insist that being gay is a biological imperative, completely unshakeable or unchangeable
Oh please, hop off your “fellow leftist” soapbox for a minute and think before you speak/type.
The idea that sexual orientation is “deliberately chosen” is a core of queer theory studies in universities across the country. Not a single one of those queer theorists is anything other than a raging leftist — and they’d agree passionately with your thesis that sexual orientation is self-expression. So in this case, it’s you and YOUR fellow leftists.
which would mean that no gay man could ever possibly have a relationship, sex, or children with a heterosexual woman
That’s also malarke. “Orientation” does not equate to exclusivity.
Gay men are capable of orgasm, gay sperm can certainly fertilize, and I have relationships (of a non-romantic nature) with plenty of heterosexual women.
On the opposite side, heterosexual men can also have sex with other men, and function “properly” in that respect.
However, one’s natural inclinations — which are as innate as his taste in food or colors — is a predeterminate of behavior. To the extent that the self-loathing thesis imposed by others is inculturated in gay men, they end up a confused and muddled mess (as you are), but there’s nothing inherent in the science of psychology that states that gay men categorically aren’t majority inclined towards one orientation over another.
You need to do some reading up on Kinsey’s research, far left queer theorists (who you’re actually drawing most of your rhteoric from), and other perspectives before opening your yap, matey.
posted by Lori Heine on
“It’s not insulting, it’s descriptive. That one has faith that its true doesn’t change the fact that it is superstition until there’s factual proof of its basis.”
So in other words, people who believe that it is more than mere “superstition” simply do not matter. We’re nobodies, and our perspective is unworthy of respect. And then — astonishingly — you claim you are not insulting us!
Mr. Miller, your powers of self-delusion are truly herculean.
As for “factual proof” of the basis of religious faith, you flunk your own standard. You have no more factual proof that what we believe is not true than we do that it is.
Again, kindly dispense with the hypocritical claim that you merely wish to crusade against theocracy. You will wiffle back over in that direction when someone calls you on your anti-religious bigotry, but then as soon as the coast seems clear (or someone has a good word for religious faith), you come waffling back with more of your bigoted, anti-religious bile.
I say this in all kindness, sir: You have unresolved conflicts about religious faith. Don’t bother trying to deny it, because it’s plain as the nose on your face.
There is, truly, an option that might help you, regardless of where you end up standing on religious faith. A good therapist will have a “Mommy” doll, a “Daddy” doll and perhaps even a “Pastor” doll (or if no dolls, then surely some pillows) to use in role-playing. You can take out all your unresolved anger over how religious people have hurt you. That’s right — just get it all out of your system. It still leaves the question of what to decide about religious faith, and there’s no telling what choice you will make. But at least you’ll be able to make it without sounding like a rageful fourteen-year-old.
That is exactly how you come across. Other people see it. I can assure you your religious foes see it; they point it out every chance they get, with great effect on those who otherwise might be convinced that we are not all one-dimensionally evil.
Useful idiot, sir, is not intended as a personal slur. It is a political term for those who aid and abet the very people they so loudly claim to oppose.
posted by Brian Miller on
Soulforce consider it totally and completely “gay-positive” for organizations to allow gays as long as they remain completely celibate
The focus on sex is all yours, my friend — not mine (nor, it would appear, Soulforce’s). I haven’t had sex in quite some time (by choice, not happenstance) — it doesn’t make me any less gay than when I was in a relationship and getting it regularly.
You need to decouple the “does” from the “is.”
You also need to stop assuming that I care about the superstitious components around celibacy requirements and realize that I support the rights of anyone to pursue any sort of living they so wish — and applaud those who believe in their mysticism for sticking to their personal guns and remaining celibate.
They’re infinitely more interesting and principled than conservatives tossing out phoney talking points from behind pseudonyms.
posted by Brian Miller on
I say this in all kindness, sir: You have unresolved conflicts about religious faith. Don’t bother trying to deny it, because it’s plain as the nose on your face.
Ahh, the last refuge of the neo-Stalinist scoundrel — the “you must be crazy if you don’t agree with me” offense.
It’s not unexpected — except that there’s certainly some basis of truth to one of the corrolaries, which is that religion is generally hurtful to those it targets. I think lots of gay folks, lots of straight “nonbelievers” and lots of “heretics” of all colors and orientations can attest to that — from prison, from the pointy end of a religious warrior’s sword, and from beyond the grave.
posted by Brian Miller on
Those gays like yourself who spread the fallacy that there is no choice whatsoever involved in homosexual behavior
By the way, ND30, where did I or any other “gays like myself” insist that there is “no choice whatsoever involved in homosexual behavior?”
I didn’t. Nobody else did — except the voices in your head.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ahh, the last refuge of the neo-Stalinist scoundrel — the “you must be crazy if you don’t agree with me” offense.
Oh irony, sweet, delicious, crunchy irony.
That, and when you started talking about the “voices in your head” in reference to me, or how I was a “confused and muddled mess”.
Next up:
By the way, ND30, where did I or any other “gays like myself” insist that there is “no choice whatsoever involved in homosexual behavior?”
Here.
I’ll often challenge “orthodox” Catholics to ask why they insist that homosexuality is a “choice” (when it isn’t) but Catholicism is a “heritage that will always be a deep part of me.”
And this:
Christers pretend, against all reason, that homosexuality is a choice because they desperately want to make it a sin.
Or:
in which I simply pointed out that the absurd “homosexuality is a choice” claim has a theological origin
And there you have it.
But, as Lori ably pointed out above, that’s par for your course; you say one thing, wiffle back to something quasi-defensible when challenged on it, then come waffling back when the coast is clear.
posted by Lori Heine on
Ah, Mr. Miller — so now I am a “neo-Stalinist scoundrel!”
Your absurdities simply never end. You are so amusing, I can’t wait to hear what you come up with next.
In case you are interested, there is definitely a Stalinist (or, in the more general sense, a bolshevist) dimension to your own thinking.
Back in 1917, when the bolsheviks deposed the tsar and plunged Russia into revolution, they were able to do so, largely, by smearing the Russian church. Had the church, indeed, been guilty of looking the other way when the people cried to it for help against tsarist tyranny? Of course it had. Do all people of faith now believe the commies were right to toss the proverbial baby out with the bathwater by jettisoning (and indeed outlawing) all religious faith because of this transgression? Certainly not.
In so blithely tossing the religious “baby” out with the “bathwater” because of the (very real) abuses the Church has been guilty of against gays, you, sir, are a bolshie to the core.
Incidentally, a great many basically mentally-healthy people, from time to time in their lives, do seek therapy. That you assume they must all be crazy says WAY more about you — and your own prejudices — than it does about anyone who suggests that therapy might be helpful to you.
posted by John on
Truly pathetic from an Eastern religious point of view that sexual orientation is the stuff of controversery for adherents of the Semitic Sky God religions. More stars in the universe than grains of sand on earth and your pedestrian minds are fixated on bed. March on, small minded people until you are united with your Lord when the male heterosexual souls will face a certain conflict, so it seems.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As I understand it, John, adherence to Eastern religion also involves moving beyond making petty criticism of other people and their particular religious beliefs.
One must wonder; are you an adherent of Eastern religious belief because you actually support and would like to model its forms, or are you just doing it out of rebellion and establishing your supposed superiority over the adherents of the “Semitic sky god” religions with which you were previously acquainted?
posted by dalea on
In Colorado, May is a month that evangelical Christians celebrate as “Homos Make Me Puke Month’. This wonderful festivity is promoted, or at least used to be, with ads on all the local evangelical teevee and radio stations. No conservative Christian leader in the whole state ever, ever spoke against the event. Wildly popular, expressing the viewpoint of vast swathes of Christianity towards us.
My previous comments that set Lori off so were directed specifically at evangelical Christians. They are based on following eC media closely for over a decade. And 5 futile years at Bridges Across the Divide. So, I do have some familiarty with the subject.
I also said that I really don’t trust mainline churches, based on personal experience. But that there are some gay positive congregations within them. And that the liberal churches can be very good places for gay people.
My personal view of orientation is that being gay is actually a variety of phenomenas. It differs from person to person. Different people come to be gay for different reasons and have varied intensities of gayness. Some are hard wired, some aren’t.
posted by Lori Heine on
I do appreciate Dalea’s clarification. It is generally fair-minded and helpful.
What “sets me off,” however, is the idea of generalization in and of itself.
There are, in fact, GLBT Evangelical churches. There are also churches (Revolution Church, the 3-city congregation headed by Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker’s son, Jay, comes to mind) that are predominantly-straight and yet — marvelously and improbably — Evangelical and gay-friendly at the same time.
The world is changing. Is this happening at a pace so slow as to be maddening? Of course it is. Unfortunately, that is simply the way big social change usually happens.
The anti-gay Evangelical mainstream refuses to acknowledge that change is taking place. It suits them to hear people like Mr. Miller shriek about “superstition” and John condescend to us all — from his Nirvana of superior, Eastern wisdom — about the “Semitic sky god.”
Yeah, that’s just how our enemies want to see us. So by all means, let’s give ’em more of that.
posted by John on
North Dallas Thirty – Vigorous and honest criticism is not petty. Feigning respect to stupidity, like all dihonesty, does one no good.
posted by John on
Lorie Heine – I definitely don’t want to give gay haters “more of that”. At the same time, why can’t I have strong religious beliefs and express them just as strongly as Christian finndamentalists do – see Theocracy Watch if you think they’re the mild mannered fellows you see on TV. On a matter as important as spirituality life is too short to be quiet – to be quiet in the face of those who abuse it – even for the sake of gay rights.
posted by Lori Heine on
John, I deal with the Religious Right all the time. I am more than well aware they are not all “mild-mannered.”
I do not understand, however, how condescending attacks against Christianity constitute an expression of anybody’s religious belief, strong or otherwise.
As a Christian, I obviously do not see the beliefs of Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims, atheists or any other non-Christians as true to the same comprehensive degree that I do my own. That notwithstanding, you’ll notice I do not engage in smart-aleck attacks against these beliefs or their adherents. I don’t make fun of Buddha, of Mohammed or any other religious figure from a tradition other than my own.
Why do I not do this? Because I respect people who hold to beliefs other than my own.
Snarky references to “sky gods” or “superstitions” are nothing but adolescent name-calling.
A while back, a Pagan friend of mine felt compelled to email me a long screed supposedly defending her faith. I have no idea why she felt she had to do this, as I had never attacked her faith. I certainly felt no need to email her any propaganda promoting Christianity. Be that as it may, the screed came. Was I supposed to be impressed?
It consisted of a single, brief paragraph, in which she barely scratched the surface of what Pagans believe. I would hope she knows more about her own religion than what she told me there. What followed, however, were several lengthy paragraphs viciously attacking Christianity. She totally punted away the opportunity to show her faith in a positive and intelligent light, preferring instead to engage in an attack on mine.
Did she manage to convince me of anything, beyond the startling fact that she seemed to know next to nothing about her own professed faith? Of course not.
Some of the finest people I know are atheists. I manage to peacefully coexist with all of them. Do I feel the need to insult them? Again, of course not.
When we insult the faiths of others, without bothering to elaborate in any way on why we believe what we do, all we do is make ourselves look ignorant and small.
posted by John on
Lori Heine – No you don’t engage in smart-alecky comments. You do something far worse -you pretenend to be civil while believing those you speak with are headed for hell. Why can’t Christians get it through their heads that this shuts it all down?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You do something far worse -you pretenend to be civil while believing those you speak with are headed for hell.
So the reason you don’t like Christians is because you think they’re thinking that you’re headed for hell, regardless of what they actually do.
You’re right; that DOES shut everything down. It’s kind of hard for Christians to do anything pleasant for you when you’ve convinced yourself that everything they do is wrong.
And I agree with Lori. What you do is not expressing your own religious beliefs — unless the fundamental tenet of whatever Eastern religion you follow is to attack, belittle, and insult Christians and others at every opportunity.
posted by Lori Heine on
Dear, Dear John,
I’m curious as to where I ever said that you were “headed for hell.” Kindly tell me where, in anything I have said here, I even distantly hinted such a thing.
You are putting words in my mouth, obviously based on your own biases. Nobody died and made me God; it very frankly is not up to me to determine who is, or who is not, going to hell. And I never said otherwise.
You are bringing a lot of very old, tired garbage onto this thread, and attempting to put it off on people who have never done you any harm at all.
Again, I would suggest that if you want to tell us what you believe and what you stand for, the floor’s all yours. By all means, go for it. What you are out of line in doing is presuming to tell me, NDT or anybody else who is not you what we believe. Especially when it may not be what we believe at all.
posted by xstate on
I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that Christianity is good for LGBT people. Just to let you know, religiously I lean more towards Judaism, I “converted” to it about 11 – 14 years ago shortly after I forced into Sunday school classes by my parents. It didn’t last long, but I can tell you that Christianity, regardless of whether it is liberal or not, is not the tame, cute, friendly religion they try to make it out as. Ditto on Catholicism and Mormonism, which while they are seperate religions, are just as potentially dangerous as Christianity. Don’t believe me? Go into any of the three communities and watch them real closely. Underneath the pomp and ceremony and the facade of “family values”, you’ll find domestic and community violence (Christians beating up Christians, Catholics beating up Mormons, etc…), incest, alcoholism, fraud, “golden showers”, adultery, statue worship/flag worship (false gods), money laundering, corruption, teen pregnancy by the truckload, beastiality, demonology, and all other kinds of shenanigans among their kind. Why do you think the more religious parts of the USA have more crime and rampant drug use? This is why I left the “church” long before they indoctrinated me, and I don’t think that playing with fire is what LGBT America wants. I would be very skeptical of anyone who is LGBT yet is talking about Christianity or Mormonism or Catholicism as a viable way of seeing the world. I consider Judaism to be more reasonable as the Jews don’t try to conquer their neighbors like the Muslims, or they are less likely to try to run someone over for being transgender (like myself). If this comes across as mean or insulting, well, this is reality. I’m being awfully nice to the Christian/Mormon/Catholic establishments here. Be careful when you deal with their kind. As for the GLBT who are any of these religions, you will maintain more credibility if you leave those religions behind. Unless of course, you want to be associated with the likes of Fred PHelps, because that is what society will do to you no matter how much you try to say that you tolerate LGBT folk.
posted by Lori Heine on
“As for the GLBT who are any of these religions, you will maintain more credibility if you leave those religions behind.”
Yes, we have strayed from the officially-approved, Leftist reservation and we must be punished. PUNISHED, I tell you! How DARE we think for ourselves or make our own decisions as to what we believe?
“Unless of course, you want to be associated with the likes of Fred PHelps, because that is what society will do to you no matter how much you try to say that you tolerate LGBT folk.”
Xstate, there is a name for the act of selectively editing ones’ view of reality, airbrushing out any aspect of it which is not convenient. It is called LYING. It is dishonest to tell Christian gays that they “must” be lumped together with the likes of Fred Phelps, no matter where on the political spectrum the lie comes from.
As for the hysterical charges you make of “bestiality,” “demonology” and the like, I really suggest you need to take a few deep breaths and calm down. Are there all those terrible things going on among Christians? Well, none that I personally know, but since Christians are as capable of error as anybody else is, I wouldn’t doubt that there is some of it going on somewhere.
Let’s clear up what seems to be a major misunderstanding. As these things are neither sanctioned nor condoned by any form of Christianity, they are aberrations. To suggest that all Christians everywhere are responsible for them is no different than suggesting that all gays, everywhere, are responsible for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. It is ridiculous.
People are going to think for themselves. As scary a proposition as that is for you, you’ll simply have to get over it. And as they begin, more and more, to think for themselves, instead of letting thought-nazis of whatever political stripe do their thinking for them, more and more of them will choose something neither “side” tells them they may: GLBT-tolerant, truly inclusive and loving Christian faith.
Boo! Be afraid. Be very, very afraid!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What I think, xstate, is that you are demonizing Christians to make yourself feel better about your decision to abandon it — but, in the process, screwing the rest of us over who don’t feel the need to use our sexual orientation as an excuse for antireligious bigotry.
As for the GLBT who are any of these religions, you will maintain more credibility if you leave those religions behind.
You assume that we care in particular about credibility in the eyes of the irrational.
Personally, I think someone who is running around screaming that Christians are all evil, like yourself, has credibility based less on factual and reasonable analysis than it is on playing to prejudices inherent in the gay community.
Worse, what you don’t realize is that the gay community’s need to publicly spew said prejudices, as in your manifesto above, is patently tone-deaf when it compares to what most Americans believe. Personally, if I were straight, I wouldn’t vote to give thing one to a community that says, because of my belief system, that I’m practicing “incest, alcoholism, fraud, “golden showers”, adultery, statue worship/flag worship (false gods), money laundering, corruption, teen pregnancy by the truckload, beastiality, demonology, and all other kinds of shenanigans”. Yet gays like xstate are allowed to publicly state this AND that you are not “credible” as a gay person unless you believe it.
Worse, organizations like Soulforce support this belief — by their insistence that gays never do anything wrong, that it’s all “homophobia”.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Lori Heine | April 23, 2007, 3:41pm: As for “factual proof” of the basis of religious faith, you flunk your own standard. You have no more factual proof that what we believe is not true than we do that it is.
No. He is justified in his disbelief since we generally assume things don?t exist unless we have compelling evidence that they do. What is true for unicorns or Bigfoot is also true for your god.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. Horsville, you are simply a bigot. Your rhetoric is insulting. I will not demean myself by responding to any more of it.
Grow up and get a life.
The fact that untold numbers of people have experiences in their lives that testify to the reality of God’s power is something you have simply chosen to disregard because it threatens your cozy, little-boy world.
Your attitude is identical to that of anti-gay bigots who ignore what GLBT folks tell them about our experiences.
A rose is a rose is a rose. And a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
posted by Brian Miller on
You have no more factual proof that what we believe is not true than we do that it is.
That’s a classic logical fallacy in the truest sense of the word. One cannot prove a negative — for example, you cannot prove that there isn’t a giant purple cat living in a candy castle on Pluto who created the solar system from his litter box. It doesn’t mean that said cat exists.
Incidentally, I saw an amusing headline the other day that underscores why so many gay people are skeptical (at best) about “religious faith organizations” and their intent.
The Vatican’s senior commentator on doctrine has declared that same-sex couples are morally equivalent to suicide bombers.
I love the headline for the article, in particular:
Abortion and gay unions: terrorism with human face
Abortion, euthanasia and genetic manipulation, and those who promote homosexual unions are expressions of “terrorism with a human face” said Cardinal Amato of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Lectures about “bigotry” are rather shallow when this sort of rhetoric is standard fare in religious communities.
Lori, not only are you and other LGBT “believers” in a minority, but according to one of the world’s largest religions, you’re a terrorist just like I am.
Good luck “working with” that crowd. I’d frankly prefer to strike my head against a brick wall — at least that would cause some motion, if only on a molecular level.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Good luck ‘working with’ that crowd.”
With which crowd, Brian? The official hierarchy of the Vatican — or the many conscientious Catholics who support gay inclusion in the Church?
Oh, but that’s right. You’ve chosen to selectively airbrush out everybody who doesn’t conform to the view that makes you feel self-righteously good about yourself.
You have no problem with what the Vatican has done to us, or what fundamentalist homobigots do to us. No, you save your wrath for GLBT Christians like NDT and me. How very, very telling.
It is you who are the collaborator with the enemy. Instead of working against them, you prefer working hand-in-glove with them. And make no mistake about it, they are much gladder to see you than they are to see me.
They talk about people like you all the time. You give them all the ammo against gays they can handle — and then some.
Really, with “friends” like you, who needs enemies?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, Lori, we miss the obvious point; after all, what else SHOULD the Vatican call people like dalea and Mr. Miller, who support vandalizing churches, assaulting Christians, vomiting and urinating on believers, publicly mocking their every statement, and the numerous other tactics of gay intolerance and hate towards religion?
Mr. Miller acts surprised that someone like himself, who supports violent actions and hate speech against the religious as an attempt to cow them and force them out of public life is deemed a terrorist by the people he is targeting.
The reason Mr. Miller is upset at us, Lori, is because our very existence as gay Christians undercuts the entire foundation upon which he’s based his antireligious bigotry and his antisocial actions. We make it impossible for him to claim that his hateful actions towards Christians and the religious are an uncontrollable outgrowth of his sexual orientation; we make it obvious that he CHOOSES to support the vandalism, calls for banning religion, and other such things that he does.
posted by Lori Heine on
NDT, you’re exactly right. The antireligious bigots in the GLBT community are — very unfairly — making us all look bad to people who otherwise might be able to understand us.
Maybe one of these days, they will pause to ask themselves some honest questions. For example, why they find other GLBT people’s religious freedom so threatening.
It truly seems that they would like it better if we all made the same choice they have. (And, indeed, it IS a choice.) But we have, instead, made the choice they must keep telling themselves and everybody else — again and again and again — is somehow not possible or acceptable. We — not those in the Vatican or on the Religious Right — seem to be the flies in their ointment.
We have both made our points here, and we have given them plenty to consider. They will probably go right on throwing the same lame arguments at us again and again, no matter how many times we refute them. At this point, we must face the fact we are dealing either with dogged obtuseness or downright dishonesty.
Choices abound for GLBT people. It’s a great, big, beautiful world full of choices. You and I will keep on working to make more and more of them available to us all. No one of goodwill has a leg to stand on in attempting to work against us.
posted by xstate on
For the record I am transgender but thank you for your kindness. No, I am not a leftist or whatever you called me, I am mostly libertarian and don’t buy into the Left/right/ argument.
No, I’m not convinced that Christianity or the like is necessarily good for the GLBT community. Any religion that says that we are to be stoned, that spells trouble. I would be very cautious around anyone who believes in such a religion yet claims that the vast majority of it’s followers are nice tame folks. A small percentage, maybe 0.1% are probably genuine in their tolerance of others, but then again they probably aren’t strong in their faith. The more you follow those faiths, the more you become them. That is the logical conclusion.
ANd yes, Lori, NDT, et al… demonology and bestiality go on in the Christian/Catholic/Mormon quite often. By their nature, you could consider these faiths to be demonology as they advocate the worship of spirits over following’s Gods laws. How do you know that you are indeed following God’s word if some spirit speaks to you?
Yes, I know plenty about your faiths, I have lived among them for most of my life, and yes, there is a tremendous amount of misbehavior and backstabbing in their churches. I just witnessed it on your responses. I would think that ‘civilized’ GLBT Christians would be more understanding of where much of the GLBT community comes from with regards to Christian/Catholic/Mormon aggression towards us. No I am not a bigot, I am a realist, and I can guarantee you that most of the Christianized faiths would be more than happy to throw you into the fire for being GLBT. I never said that you were evil or criminal for being C/C/M. But don’t expect me to see them as viable religions, and don’t expect all of the GLBT community to tolerate it. You know what we go through, don’t play ignorant.
posted by Brian Miller on
With which crowd, Brian? The official hierarchy of the Vatican — or the many conscientious Catholics who support gay inclusion in the Church?
Who, when push comes to shove, still give money to the church and choose “communion” with bigots over “gay inclusion?”
Yes, we certainly need more friends like that, don’t we?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would think that ‘civilized’ GLBT Christians would be more understanding of where much of the GLBT community comes from with regards to Christian/Catholic/Mormon aggression towards us.
Not really.
That’s because you justify your behavior against them on their being awful, evil, hateful people.
Both you and Mr. Miller, xstate, are outsiders looking in who have bones to pick with the church and are quite obviously in need of rationalizations to explain why you left it.
Both Lori and I live, work, and actually worship among the religious — and we know that’s simply not the case.
We see your attitudes as being merely the GLBT version of the stories about Jews involving The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and how Jews kill children to eat their flesh and use their blood to make the Passover matzohs. These are repeated by Middle Eastern leaders and governments as a means of justifying their irrational hatred of Jews, their genocidal urges towards them, and their violent actions against them; GLBTs do the same with stories about the religious.
But don’t expect me to see them as viable religions, and don’t expect all of the GLBT community to tolerate it. You know what we go through, don’t play ignorant.
Oh, indeed we do.
But we tend to see them as the self-inflicted torments they are.
Why you are so tortured by your belief that all Christians want to throw you into the fire for being GLBT is quite beyond us, especially since our very existence makes it obvious that they don’t. But it is your belief, and you’re entitled to it — right up to the point where you start rationalizing it by claiming that all gays should feel that way.
THEN it moves from being merely your own personal issue to our problem — and we will respond accordingly.
posted by Lori Heine on
“But don’t expect me to see them as viable religions…”
X, dear, I really don’t care whether you see them as viable religions or not. Who are you, anyway? Your choice on the matter of religion is strictly your own concern.
You know, it may not be all about you after all.
“…and don’t expect all of the GLBT community to tolerate it.”
Spoken like a true mind-nazi. That’s as threatening as anything I’ve ever heard coming from a fundamentalist homophobe. I can’t expect you to “tolerate” my religious freedom? And just what do you intend to do about it?
“You know what we go through, don’t play ignorant.”
Making a different choice as to how to respond to “what we go through” cannot, by any rational, adult mind, be seen as automatically the same thing as “playing ignorant.”
And as for your insistent ranting about the “demonology” of Mormons and Catholics, even though I have never been a Mormon and am no longer a practicing Catholic, I did teach adult catechism in the Catholic Church for nearly ten years and know rank ignorance when I hear it. You need to grow up and stop slandering other people’s faiths.
X, you are simply (and quite hysterically) reaching for any stick to beat religious people with. You are actually proving what NDT and I have been saying pretty much all along, which is that you are trying to rationalize your choice to reject religious faith by pounding on other people. We stand as a reminder to you that your choice could have been very different.
Really, this is getting pathetic. PLEASE do yourself a favor and seek professional help.
posted by Lori Heine on
And Brian, you, too, are turning into a babbling, ranting fool.
I go to a church that voted overwhelmingly to accept gays as full and equal members, even though most of them, at the time, were straight. My pastor, and other fellow church members, have risked their careers, and in some cases literally their lives to support us.
Your insistence on denying reality and treating good people like those as if they do not exist is — and yes, there is no other word for it — bigoted. It is also inexcusably ignorant.
“Yes, we certainly need more friends like that, don’t we?”
Yes, Brian dear, we probably do.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Lori Heine | April 24, 2007, 5:06pm: Mr. Horsville, you are simply a bigot. Your rhetoric is insulting.
I simply enunciated a principle of elementary logic. I’m sorry if you feel insulted by elementary logic.
Brian Miller | April 24, 2007, 8:47pm: That’s a classic logical fallacy in the truest sense of the word. One cannot prove a negative.
That?s not always true. You can prove, for instance, that a particular assertion is internally contradictory. Square circles don’t exist because squares and circles have properties that are mutually exclusive.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I’m sorry if you feel insulted by elementary logic.”
Mr. Horsville, I hope it makes you feel better to fold your arms across your (undoubtedly-massive and very hairy) chest and issue condescending rejoinders about “logic” to dithery, womanly little me. I suppose I should be the good little house bitch and bow, at this point, to your grand, masculine superiority.
Your comically-overblown sense of it, anyway.
The actual fact, which keeps being brought up by NDT and I and then blithely ignored by you and some of your witty little friends, is that WE DON’T REALLY CARE what you do or do not believe. You have dropped your sizzling little turds of wisdom for naught. Nobody asked what you believe. If you wish to go dazzle somebody with your superior intelligence, it might be a good idea to go find somebody who gives a damn.
If you ever bothered to read it in the first place, you will reacall that this post was about the strategies employed by various GLBT activists who attempt to win the hearts and minds of Christians. So you are not a Christian. I think we’ve got that by now. You may not want to move on from it, but not everybody else finds your lofty estimation of your own, too-keen-to-be-Christian intelligence as fascinating as you do.
If all you care to say on this thread is, in effect, “well you Christians are all stupid, so neener-neener,” then you have done that. You have added absolutely nothing of value to the conversation, but I hope you feel better now. Kindly run along and condescend to somebody else.
I may not understand much about logic (those two X chromosomes, don’t you know?), but I do know a fair bit about psychology. Particularly what it means when somebody finds it necessary to feign superiority (especially on the basis of assertions he has never bothered to prove). It’s called overcompensation.
Mr. Horsville, only you are aware of the secret inadequacy that drives you to overcompensate. The only thing we all know is that there must be one, because you have made that pretty clear.
posted by Brian Miller on
I did teach adult catechism in the Catholic Church for nearly ten years and know rank ignorance when I hear it. You need to grow up and stop slandering other people’s faiths.
Ummm. . . he was discussing a public statement made by the Vatican’s successor agency to the Inquisition. It doesn’t get much more “catechismic” than that.
Brian, you, too, are turning into a babbling, ranting fool
Stop being so emotional and focus on facts.
Your insistence on denying reality and treating good people like those as if they do not exist is — and yes, there is no other word for it — bigoted. It is also inexcusably ignorant.
I’m delighted you’ve found one of the few religious groups that *may* not treat gays as second class citizens. I am familiar with a few of them and have tremendous respect for them.
Their existence, however, does not mitigate the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of religious lobbying, cash and believers are profoundly homophobic. And the ones who are supportive do so furtively, with whispers, and never take on the loud and aggressive anti-gay sorts in public.
Overall, religion is, for queer folk, a dangerous and tyrannical enterprise. This is simple empirical fact that the public record supports.
I’m glad that mysticism helps support you in times in your life, but you shouldn’t nastily attack those who have evolved beyond the need to believe the unbelievable — and confront those who advocate it as a basis for institutionalized oppression. . . the vast majority of believers and their leadership alike, in most every major religion on earth — Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., etc., etc.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m delighted you’ve found one of the few religious groups that *may* not treat gays as second class citizens. I am familiar with a few of them and have tremendous respect for them.
Except when you call them “superstitious” people who follow “myths” and “see reality through the lens of their superstition” who support “theocracy” and who you condescendingly mock for “believing the unbelievable” and claim haven’t “evolved”.
Not to mention the numerous other antireligious statements you support.
You have the same “respect” for these people as Democrats do for gays and for black people; only up until they start criticizing your behavior.
It should surprise no one that you support Soulforce; they are the classic example of tokens, gays who never let their alleged religious beliefs get in the way of the antireligious bigotry required of being gay. And I am quite honestly at the point where I think their going around and attacking others for being “homophobic”, when it is so clear that gaydom is riddled with antireligious bigots like yourself, is counterproductive.
Soulforce needs to make a decision. And perhaps it’s time that someone like myself stood up at one of their meetings and asked them whether or not they support the beliefs of leftist gays like you, Mr. Miller, Larry Kramer, dalea, and others, all of which you justify based on your homosexuality, that Christians are all evil and awful and thus deserve to have their churches vandalized, their faith mocked, and their rights to express themselves publicly stripped.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Stop being so emotional and focus on facts.”
Oooh, Brian, I’m just so EMOTIONAL! Tee-hee! Let me take a moment while i wipe my eyes!
Does this ever actually work for you? I mean, are there truly people out there who think you’re intelligent just because you use a few buzzwords most boys mastered in junior high?
Y’know, simply clicking your ruby-slippered heels together and chanting “I’m logical…I focus on the facts” does not necessarily make it so.
You have already proven my original point so many, many times here that all most folks are going to have to do is read the thread (if they can stand it) and they will see it shining through.
I never said a majority of Christians accepted gays. What I said was that the number will only grow if those of us who believe (not those, Brian dear, who are too intelligent to be suckered by such “superstition”) stay in the church and work to change hearts and minds.
Nor did I ever suggest anywhere that the process I advocate would be quick or easy. But then again, if you regard all religious faith as “mysticism,” we already know you don’t care.
There may be people out there reading all this who don’t want to jump in an comment because they know they’ll get the hell beaten out of them by the antireligious bullies t this site.
My usual response to bullies is to point and laugh. But not everybody feels the same.
Brian, we all know how smart you are, and we’re impressed. Really we are. I’m not “attacking” you for “evolving beyond believing the unbelievable.”
My, that’s so silly that just quoting it makes me giggle. You might try standing in front of a mirror and repeating that a few times just to get a feel for how most thinking people are really going to receive it. Or, at your mother probably used to say, “You should HEAR yourself.”
posted by Lori Heine on
My, I get a lot of typos here. I guess it’s the way the text gets all squished together. That’s “AS your mother used to say.”
I don’t suppose Miss Crump is sitting at the front of the room to ding me. And that’s a good thing.
posted by Lori Heine on
It strikes me that those hostile to religion often manage to turn their anti-religion into…well…a religion.
Words like “logic” and “facts” are invoked as if they hold some magical power of their own. Little attempt is made to actually use them, but I s’pose if you keep saying ’em over and over again, somebody out there’s gonna think you’re logical.
Kind of like the superstition so many folks here claim to be opposed to. Paint enough pictures of bison on the cave wall and you’ll have a successful hunt.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Lori Heine | April 25, 2007, 9:05pm: If all you care to say on this thread is, in effect, “well you Christians are all stupid, so neener-neener,” then you have done that.
I don’t think I made that point in my posts.
You clearly did in yours.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. Horsville, you do, indeed, elevate childishness and nasty name-calling to a sort of art form. I’m sure you were a big hit on the playground. That you still feel you must resort to the same, stale tricks as (presumably) an adult says far less for your own intelligence than anything I have said here does for mine.
Of course I am assuming that you are an adult. You sound like you’re about thirteen.
Again, instead of simply employing sympathetic magic and repeating words like “logic” and “facts” as if they were magical incantations, I will actually employ the concept behind them. This post (I am attempting to remind you for the umpteenth time) was about whether religious activist groups like Soulforce are effective in what they are trying to do. It was not about the value — or lack thereof — of religious faith.
Those who have resorted to emotionalism and illogic are the very people who keep chanting “logic, logic, logic” over and over again.
I am totally uninterested in what you do or do not believe. I am not here to evangelize. Nor do I find it necessary to defend my faith to people who clearly cannot discuss the issue without getting emotional. NDT and I showed up here to comment on the piece about Soulforce, and that was all.
Silly us, we thought this whole thing was about ideas. To self-proclaimed paragons of cool-headed logic and reason like you, it is all about shrill emotionalism and hysterical name-calling.
But I know…you’re rubber and I’m glue.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Lori Heine | April 26, 2007, 5:23pm: This post (I am attempting to remind you for the umpteenth time) was about whether religious activist groups like Soulforce are effective in what they are trying to do. It was not about the value — or lack thereof — of religious faith.
You don’t need to remind me anything. You just need to focus on what I actually write. As I already pointed out, in my initial post I only reacted to other posters’ comments, and quite briefly. My replies were therefore not unrelated to the ongoing conversation as you seem to infer. In any case, I never discussed in any of my posts the value — or lack thereof — of religious faith.
You do, indeed, elevate childishness and nasty name-calling to a sort of art form. […] To self-proclaimed paragons of cool-headed logic and reason like you, it is all about shrill emotionalism and hysterical name-calling.
Could you please give examples of that hysterical name-calling?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In any case, I never discussed in any of my posts the value — or lack thereof — of religious faith.
Except where you called it “absurd and dangerous fairy tales”.
Which also nicely answers your question about hysterical name-calling.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
North Dallas Thirty | April 26, 2007, 7:11pm: Except where you called it ‘absurd and dangerous fairy tales’.
Really? Do you also remember when you admitted that “Christians are all evil and awful and thus deserve to have their churches vandalized, their faith mocked, and their rights to express themselves publicly stripped”? How shocking.
More seriously, what I actually said is: “Why exactly would gays or anyone else be required to express respect for what they consider absurd and dangerous fairy tales? A religion is just a set of beliefs and, as such, is not immune to challenge and criticism. Let it compete freely in the arena of ideas. If it fails there, then it deserves to do so.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Ah, well…more little bison on the cave wall.
Mr. Horsville, no one cares whether you “express respect” for a religious belief you do not share or whether you do not. I have tried repeatedly to bring the conversation back to the actual post that spawned it.
Really, how irrational of me! How illogical! How absurd!
Evidently every mention of Christianity sets some people in this crowd off on a tangent. The post, as I recall, did not assert that Christianity is the true and glowing answer to all life’s ills. All it was was an inquiry into the activist work of SoulForce, the question posed being whether their methods were effective.
But I suppose when you have a deep-seated mad on for Christianity, your response is simply pavlovian. The subject is mentioned — ding-ding! — and you can’t help yourself. You begin to snarl and foam at the mouth.
You are a troubled little man. And your puffed-up sense of your own superiority is merely pathetic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Really? Do you also remember when you admitted that “Christians are all evil and awful and thus deserve to have their churches vandalized, their faith mocked, and their rights to express themselves publicly stripped”?
Of course I remember, Mr. Horsville.
And perhaps it’s time that someone like myself stood up at one of their meetings and asked them whether or not they support the beliefs of leftist gays like you, Mr. Miller, Larry Kramer, dalea, and others, all of which you justify based on your homosexuality, that Christians are all evil and awful and thus deserve to have their churches vandalized, their faith mocked, and their rights to express themselves publicly stripped.
The difference is that you believe my pointing out the views of others translates to admittance that those views are true.
In your case, you have directly espoused the views I have pointed you out as holding.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Lori Heine | April 27, 2007, 12:01am: I suppose when you have a deep-seated mad on for Christianity, your response is simply pavlovian. The subject is mentioned — ding-ding! — and you can’t help yourself. You begin to snarl and foam at the mouth.
Did my initial comment come out of nowhere? No, as I repeatedly pointed out, it was in response to another poster’s assertion, with which I disagreed. You may not be interested in that specific point; I was. So I chose to adress it. My remark was two lines long and purely incidental.
It was then followed by your first rant…
North Dallas Thirty | April 27, 2007, 1:41am: The difference is that you believe my pointing out the views of others translates to admittance that those views are true.
No, I was simply giving an example of a ridiculously misleading selective quote.
You have directly espoused the views I have pointed you out as holding.
When you claimed I called Christianity absurd and dangerous fairy tales, you lied. I may think it’s true; I may not. It’s irrelevant: I did not say it. Besides, the point that I was making in my commeent had nothing to do with the value of religious faith; it was about the right to challenge religious beliefs like any other beliefs.
posted by dalea on
As we are on the eve of a major religious festival; Beltain, I thought to post a few musings.
This festival focuses our thoughts on the Many Breasted Mother of All. It is traditionally: Our Sovereign Lady in Her Aspect as the Visible, Manifest and Tangible World. In Christianity some pale reflections of Her remain: Mary etc.
For this joyous festival, complete with traditional Pagan Maypoles and crownings; let me lay out some traditional religious viewpoints.
Point one. Nothing exists apart from the Natural World: that which is, which was and which can be. The Goddess speaks to us across the ages to make this point. The Goddess is the apparent world. She is all that we feel, touch and feel.
Divinity is inherent in the Natural and Apparent World, there is nowhere else for it to exist.
The Divine can be male or female. Or gay and lesbian.
A chant to help make this clear to the impious and irreligious:
We all come from the Goddess
And to Her we all return
Like Drops of Rain
Flowing to the Ocean
Glad Beltain. Remember the Words of the Great Lady as She Charges Us:
All Acts of Pleasure Are My Worship
posted by dalea on
Tonight I attended a most wonderful Walpurgisnacht service. We prayed to Odin, Freya and Thor. This is traditional Northern European Religion. The service was in the language ancestral to English: Old Norse. It spoke directly from the Prose Edda.
So, despite the ravings from some here, I am a religious traditionalist. I adhere to the Northern European system. Which means I am not very sympathetic to all the Eastern believes on show here.
Blessed Be,
Dale
posted by Tim Hulsey on
ND30 writes:
LOL….the problem is, Mr. Miller, is that I didn’t invoke what you are calling “superstition”. Mr. Hulsey did
I can see your close-reading skills are sharp as ever, ND30. For the record, I wrote that biblical texts flatly contradicted your assertions about what Jesus did or didn’t do. And I still don’t need your permission to call you crazy, especially given your abundant evidence.
— as an excuse for gays supporting banning organized religion, desecrating altars, pissing in holy water fonts, vandalizing buildings, puking and urinating on church members, and saying that their heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths.
Soulforce does none of these things, and advocates none of these things. Most of the Soulforce members I’ve met over the years have been evangelical Christians. (The others have been Buddhists and Quakers.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
For the record, I wrote that biblical texts flatly contradicted your assertions about what Jesus did or didn’t do.
Only if, as I pointed out above, you deny the divinity of Christ or the fact that He, according to numerous statements in the Bible, was without sin and kept the Law perfectly.
But it wouldn’t surprise me if you did; after all, you’re trying to rationalize why you and Soulforce, instead of going after people who use their homosexuality as a reason to support banning organized religion, desecrating altars, pissing in holy water fonts, vandalizing buildings, puking and urinating on church members, and saying that their heartfelt beliefs are irrational and idiotic superstition and myths, are looking for a means to criticize those who point out the foolishness of gays doing these things.
Dr. King and Gandhi criticized those of their own minority status who advocated hatred and violence. You and Soulforce facilitate and make excuses for it.